Area Copyright and Usage
Xochitli-Balam
Had a distasteful situation recently with an old Imm. After a long period of
inactivity he returned and demanded that we remove his area from the mud.
Interestingly enough, it was under this Imm that we began the policy that any
area submitted to the mud was ours indefinitely and that we reserved the right
to use it or not. Now since we are genuinely worried that our dear friend
will get buck teeth if he sucks his thumb any longer, we are rewriting the
quests and pulling the objects etc etc.
It brings up an interesting point though. We feel that once an area is
submitted and coded into the game, it is ours to do with as we see fit. The
code is our property, and by submitting the area an author, while still
retaining creative copyright to the ideas within the area, relinquishes
control of what happens to the area while at that mud. Distribution outside
the mud is another thing entirely.
So as we refine our policy I thought it would be a good topic to hash around
with everyone here, and hopefully discuss some of the key issues that others
have encountered. Let's talk about area copyrighting and so on.. :)
Xochi
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mystic Adventure - Medieval Diku Mud
No PK, No Multi, Lots of online Quests!
http://www.mystic-adventure.org
telnet 216.64.150.80 4000
(mystic-adventure.org 4000)
* * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ainya
<snip>
: Had a distasteful situation recently with an old Imm. After a long period of
: inactivity he returned and demanded that we remove his area from the mud.
: It brings up an interesting point though. We feel that once an area is
: submitted and coded into the game, it is ours to do with as we see fit. The
: code is our property, and by submitting the area an author, while still
: retaining creative copyright to the ideas within the area, relinquishes
: control of what happens to the area while at that mud. Distribution outside
: the mud is another thing entirely.
If the area was written for your mud, you own a copyright. The author also
owns a copyright to it, as well as all distribution rights. This dual
ownership is made possible because it falls under collaborative works, ie
the area was written with/for your code. With this in mind, you have every
right to use his area or not or change it if you wish with all the proper
documentation and credit. You do not, however, have the right to
distribute it or share it with any other individuals, which is the sole
right of its author.
Even had the immortal written it for another mud and given it to you. The
permission was granted to integrate this area as part of your game. You
then have the right to use it or not, as it is now part of your game.
This also applies to any code that was written for your mud, jointly or
patched in (legitimately) from an outside source.
Ainya, Imp of Prophecies of the Dragon.
Glyciren
> If the area was written for your mud, you own a copyright. The author also
> owns a copyright to it, as well as all distribution rights.
So what your saying is that the imm that made the area has a right to demand
that you send him a copy of the area files so that he can put them on his
own MUD, or give them to another MUD? I think many admins need to realize
that buiders DO have this right, even if you are angry at them and have
removed them from you MUD. They have a right to a copy of that which is
their's. Seems pretty logical to me... just wish it was that logical to
some admins I have worked for in the past.
Glyciren
Xochitli-Balam
>>Ainya wrote in message <7dbu8e$f15$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>...
I can't see how the imm could demand a copy of the area files. His copyright
extends to the creative ideas behind the area, not the code of the game. And
what Mud in their right mind would give area files away when it is unique to
their mud? I think the author could ask, but shouldn't expect anything.
After all he/she could always rewrite the area into another mud's code. And
if they didn't have backups, to hell with them! :)
Xochi, Angel at Mystic Adventure
Jon A. Lambert
>
>
>> If the area was written for your mud, you own a copyright. The author also
>> owns a copyright to it, as well as all distribution rights.
>> <snip>
I would agree with this.
>
>So what your saying is that the imm that made the area has a right to demand
>that you send him a copy of the area files so that he can put them on his
>own MUD, or give them to another MUD?
> I think many admins need to realize
>that buiders DO have this right, even if you are angry at them and have
>removed them from you MUD. They have a right to a copy of that which is
>their's. Seems pretty logical to me... just wish it was that logical to
>some admins I have worked for in the past.
No. The original author should have been wise enough to retain a personal
machine readable copy. I do not believe the original mud has any
responsibility or obligation to supply the author with a machine readable
copy. The author would be free to manually recreated that work on another
mud. An author who participates in a collaborative work retains all rights
to their portion of that work to do whatever they want with it, except where
there exists some sort of contractual arrangments.
--
--* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com *--
--* Mud Server Developer's Page <http://pw1.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> *--
--* I am the Dragon of Grindly Grund, but my lunches aren't very much fun, *--
--* For I like my damsels medium rare, And they always come out well done. *--
Jon A. Lambert
>
>
>I can't see how the imm could demand a copy of the area files. His copyright
>extends to the creative ideas behind the area, not the code of the game. And
>what Mud in their right mind would give area files away when it is unique to
>their mud? I think the author could ask, but shouldn't expect anything.
>After all he/she could always rewrite the area into another mud's code. And
>if they didn't have backups, to hell with them! :)
You are right, but remember CREATIVE IDEAS cannot be copyrighted. Only
the work is protected, not the ideas or concepts that inspired it.
Jon A. Lambert
>
> You do not, however, have the right to
>distribute it or share it with any other individuals, which is the sole
>right of its author.
If you have a copyright, then you have distribution rights. Same thing.
However, I think the distinction you are making is that you must redistribute
the entire collaborative work and not the individual authors' works alone.
Anything less than the full work would require additional permissions.
This would be analogous to literary anthologies. The anthology copyright
holder can make copies of the anthology, but cannot distribute copies of
the individual authors' portions of that work as stand alone or as portions
of other anthologies. Considering the dynamic nature of muds, the question
arises: If I release Xmud 1.0 and it includes 5 different authors' areas,
wouldn't releasing Xmud 2.0 with 5 more additional areas require obtaining
permission from the authors of the original 5 areas? I dunno.
My inclination is to say yes. Any opinions?
--
Judson E. Knott
> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 21:34:19 -0500, Glyciren said:
> I would agree with this.
> >So what your saying is that the imm that made the area has a right to demand
> >that you send him a copy of the area files so that he can put them on his
> >own MUD, or give them to another MUD?
> > I think many admins need to realize
> >that buiders DO have this right, even if you are angry at them and have
> >removed them from you MUD. They have a right to a copy of that which is
> >their's. Seems pretty logical to me... just wish it was that logical to
> >some admins I have worked for in the past.
> No. The original author should have been wise enough to retain a personal
> machine readable copy. I do not believe the original mud has any
> responsibility or obligation to supply the author with a machine readable
> copy. The author would be free to manually recreated that work on another
> mud. An author who participates in a collaborative work retains all rights
> to their portion of that work to do whatever they want with it, except where
> there exists some sort of contractual arrangments.
What about those MUDs that use OLC for area creation...where the writter
has to write using it...they have no copy of their own. So, they have a
right to request a copy. So all i gotta do is put a MUD up with OLC and
then screw the builders out of their areas, I think thats a shitty thing
to do.
mazri...@my-dejanews.com
jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com (Jon A. Lambert) wrote:
<snip>
> No. The original author should have been wise enough to retain a personal
> machine readable copy. I do not believe the original mud has any
> responsibility or obligation to supply the author with a machine readable
> copy. The author would be free to manually recreated that work on another
> mud. An author who participates in a collaborative work retains all rights
> to their portion of that work to do whatever they want with it, except where
> there exists some sort of contractual arrangments.
>
> --* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com *--
When building an area using OLC from inside the MUD it is
impossible to get a machine readable copy of the area without
access to the site: something that not all builders have or need.
I think the builders have the right to a copy of their work and
should be able to request that copy from the admin of the MUD
without having to worry about being told to bugger off.
-R. Nathaniel Azinger
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Wildman, the Cuberstalker
wrote:
>arises: If I release Xmud 1.0 and it includes 5 different authors' areas,
>wouldn't releasing Xmud 2.0 with 5 more additional areas require obtaining
>permission from the authors of the original 5 areas? I dunno.
>My inclination is to say yes. Any opinions?
Hmmm... I would say no, as this is a long standing practice in the Diku
community - each derivation has additional areas from the previous one. Of
course, that might indeed be a bad practice, and may cause a major upheaval,
with new derivations releasing either original areas or none at all. Both of
those resulting scenarios would no doubt be an improvement IMO.
--
The Wildman ICQ# 32609427
Fight spam - http://www.spamfree.org
Five is a sufficiently close approximation to infinity.
Jay D Ribak
them
a copy of their area--it may save a lot of headaches in the future. In my
dealings with this situation in the past, the former builders were not so
much
trying to be malicious and stop us from using the areas, but simply wanted
a copy of their own work. If I were in their shoes I would feel the same
way.
We maintain a policy that a builder can request a text version of their
world
at any time and we will honor that request, BUT we retain the rights to use
their area in the mud at our own discretion, and retain the right to modify
the area as we see fit, but we will always maintain the original author's
name
on our 'areas' list. Generally this has made all parties happy--the
original
author can get a copy of his area, he always has his name in the credits,
and we get to keep the area and modify it if necessary.
Aleks
mud.phoenixmud.org 4000
Glyciren <glyc...@pserc-2.ece.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:7dcah7$ifc$1...@news.itis.com...
>
>> If the area was written for your mud, you own a copyright. The author
also
>> owns a copyright to it, as well as all distribution rights.
>> <snip>
>
>So what your saying is that the imm that made the area has a right to
demand
>that you send him a copy of the area files so that he can put them on his
>own MUD, or give them to another MUD? I think many admins need to realize
>that buiders DO have this right, even if you are angry at them and have
>removed them from you MUD. They have a right to a copy of that which is
>their's. Seems pretty logical to me... just wish it was that logical to
>some admins I have worked for in the past.
>
>Glyciren
Ainya
: Glyciren wrote in message <7dcah7$ifc$1...@news.itis.com>...: >> If the area was written for your mud, you own a copyright. The author
: >> also owns a copyright to it, as well as all distribution rights.
: >> <snip>
<snip>
: >I think many admins need to realize
: >that buiders DO have this right, even if you are angry at them and have
: >removed them from you MUD. They have a right to a copy of that which is
: >their's. Seems pretty logical to me... just wish it was that logical to
: >some admins I have worked for in the past.
: I can't see how the imm could demand a copy of the area files. His copyright
: extends to the creative ideas behind the area, not the code of the game.
Area files are not code per se. If I had your area file, it would reveal
absolutely nothing about your code (unless it was Very stocky) The flags
would mean nothing without the declarations (which are not listed in the
area file themself) Really all someone could get out of it were the
descriptions and room layouts.
With your thinking, if someone wrote a story about their character, it
becomes your property because its your MUD? I don't think so. The author
of the story (as the author of an area) is still the author. They can go
publish it and post it on every mud they played if they wanted. If you
tried to publish it without their consent, even if you gave them credit,
you are in serious violation of some copyrights. With this example,
publishing a story would be equivilent to distributing their area.
: And
: what Mud in their right mind would give area files away when it is unique to
: their mud?
The Builder WROTE the area, which gives them distribution rights. Thats
their right as the author. You wrote the code which facilitated the
creation, but you as the coder did not WRITE the area. They could give it
to any mud they want. They could even realease it publically if they
chose. You can't do anything about it.
: I think the author could ask, but shouldn't expect anything.
: After all he/she could always rewrite the area into another mud's code.
When you don't respect the right of your staff and builders, why should
you expect any respect from them?
: And if they didn't have backups, to hell with them! :)
That kind of attitude is what gives us Imps a bad name.
Of course possession is 9/10ths of the law. If you refuse to give them a
copy of their area, then they can't really do anything about it. But it
doesn't make it RIGHT. Unfortunately it seems that many Imms seem to
forget about RIGHT and WRONG when they put up a MUD.
Ainya, Implementor of Prophecies of the Dragon.
Glyciren
> I agree with you 100% Glyciren. It is probably a wise idea just to give
> them a copy of their area--it may save a lot of headaches in the future.
Thank you to you and all of the otheres that supported me and reminded
others of the existance of OLC, the environment i am currently building
under. The only way i could get the area files i am working on ATM is if
one of the Imps lets me, and if we have a falling out my RIGHT to those
files could be the only way for me to obtain a copy of them for my own uses.
I was not saying i had a right to demand they remove the area, it was built
with their code and they have a right to use it if they want, but so do I.
It is not my responsibilty to keep a copy of something ive never had, in the
case of OLC, i have the right to demand my areas.
Glyciren
Glyciren
> Personally, I'd give the author a dump of the descriptions for everything
> in their area and smile cheesily. This would be because anyone given the
> ability to use OLC would be asked to read an agreement stating that
> anything they contribute to the mud becomes property of the mud, and that
> although the author would still retain copyright, building it on the mud
> grants us unlimited license. By using the account to OLC their area, they
> are consenting to the agreement.
ok thats what they would want: a file with their rdescs and mdescs and
such, which would make it easier to rebuild the area somewhere else. Thats
great that you are giving them an agreement like that, but all it is saying
is what we have already decided to be true without one: the MUD can do what
it wants with the area, as it owns the area too. But you also said that
they still retain copyright, which means that if they demand the area files
to assist in rebuilding the area somewhere else, you have to give it to
them.
Glyciren
Boff
<7de3s6$ke7$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>:
>The Builder WROTE the area, which gives them distribution rights. Thats
>their right as the author. You wrote the code which facilitated the
>creation, but you as the coder did not WRITE the area. They could give it
>to any mud they want. They could even realease it publically if they
>chose. You can't do anything about it.
Okay, what if you use OLC on a custom mud, with a custom file format and
custom flags that would guarantee the inability to port to another mud
without serious modifications? What are you honourbound to provide the
author under those circumstances?
Personally, I'd give the author a dump of the descriptions for everything
in their area and smile cheesily. This would be because anyone given the
ability to use OLC would be asked to read an agreement stating that
anything they contribute to the mud becomes property of the mud, and that
although the author would still retain copyright, building it on the mud
grants us unlimited license. By using the account to OLC their area, they
are consenting to the agreement.
Boff
[1] his/her/its, don't get picky on me.
Jon A. Lambert
>
>In article <7dcefl$8...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
> jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com (Jon A. Lambert) wrote:
><snip>
>> No. The original author should have been wise enough to retain a personal
>> machine readable copy. I do not believe the original mud has any
>> responsibility or obligation to supply the author with a machine readable
>> copy. The author would be free to manually recreated that work on another
>> mud. An author who participates in a collaborative work retains all rights
>> to their portion of that work to do whatever they want with it, except where
>> there exists some sort of contractual arrangments.
>>
>impossible to get a machine readable copy of the area without
>access to the site: something that not all builders have or need.
>I think the builders have the right to a copy of their work and
>should be able to request that copy from the admin of the MUD
>without having to worry about being told to bugger off.
It may not be possible to give them a human-readable copy. It
would depend on how the code stores "areas". I'm not sure how you get
from an "author's copyright" to "author's should have the right to a
copy". In the legalistic sense, I don't think so. In the moral sense
and in the absence of any specific agreements, attempting to fulfill
the request for a copy for a departing would be courteous.
--
--* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com *--
tel...@xenon.triode.net.au
> impossible to get a machine readable copy of the area without
> access to the site: something that not all builders have or need.
> I think the builders have the right to a copy of their work and
> should be able to request that copy from the admin of the MUD
> without having to worry about being told to bugger off.
I would guess that keeping good log files of the building and feeding
them to some similar OLC mechanism should have a reasonable chance of
reconstructing the area. It might be a bit fiddly though.
Anyhow, people who code online know the deal that they are not going
to have direct access to their area files so they should be thinking about
this when they build not sometime later.
Usually the author owns the only Copyright to the work but I would
agree with those who say that an area should be classified as a
collaborative work so the MUD admin would also have a claim.
- Tel
Ainya
: Ainya <ai...@potter.ieee.uh.edu> muttered something in
: >The Builder WROTE the area, which gives them distribution rights. Thats
: >their right as the author. You wrote the code which facilitated the
: >creation, but you as the coder did not WRITE the area. They could give it
: >to any mud they want. They could even realease it publically if they
: >chose. You can't do anything about it.
: Okay, what if you use OLC on a custom mud, with a custom file format and
: custom flags that would guarantee the inability to port to another mud
: without serious modifications? What are you honourbound to provide the
: author under those circumstances?
If you have custom written your OLC, then you have more of an argument on
whether the "area file" is code or not. Most OLC patches however, output
area files which really dont have much bearing on the code base.
If it were a custom OLC code, I think I'd have to agree with your
resolution:
: Personally, I'd give the author a dump of the descriptions for everything
: in their area and smile cheesily.
After all you are still giving them their work, which is for the most part
the descriptions.
: This would be because anyone given the
: ability to use OLC would be asked to read an agreement stating that
: anything they contribute to the mud becomes property of the mud, and that
: although the author would still retain copyright, building it on the mud
: grants us unlimited license. By using the account to OLC their area, they
: are consenting to the agreement.
If you make this type of agreement clear before they begin building, then
they are entering into a verbal or writen contract which changes the
situation.
Ainya
: In article <7dcefl$8...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
: jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com (Jon A. Lambert) wrote:
: <snip>
: > No. The original author should have been wise enough to retain a personal
: > machine readable copy.
: a machine readable copy of the area without access to the site: something
: that not all builders have or need.
I think when builders request copies of their areas they are less
concerned with the "readability" and more concerened with getting the
descriptions of rooms, objects, and mobs. Which is why I don't understand
why some people get hung up on, "oh its written in my code" Areafiles, are
usually are not verbose, and the only intelligeible information that can
be garnished is the full text descriptions, which is the sweat and effort
put in by the builder.
Boff
>
>: This would be because anyone given the
>: ability to use OLC would be asked to read an agreement stating that
>: anything they contribute to the mud becomes property of the mud, and
>: that although the author would still retain copyright, building it on
>: the mud grants us unlimited license. By using the account to OLC their
>: area, they are consenting to the agreement.
>
>If you make this type of agreement clear before they begin building,
>then they are entering into a verbal or writen contract which changes
>the situation.
>
This is the point - I feel this is the only way to get round the
situation in a manner which would be legally enforcable[1] in case of
trouble. The author of the area creates something, I don't believe it
would be possible to take away the rights of the author to 'rewrite'
their creation somewhere else without a written, signed, witnessed
contract and some sort of payment[1]. Therefore, I'm not even gonna argue
with them. I don't have to give them a text dump, I'm just being nice.
Cos that's the sorta guy I am :)
However, this still brings up the problem of the author demanding that we
stop using their work - hence the agreement. They grant us unlimited
license, or they don't build.
This method has been tried and tested, and it seems to work. At least,
noone has yet got bolshy over it.
Maybe I'm repeating myself/others, but I felt compelled to provide a
summary.
Boff
[1] I am not a lawyer, I just play one, yadda yadda, disclaimer, don't
try this at home kids.
Glyciren
> with them. I don't have to give them a text dump, I'm just being nice.
> Cos that's the sorta guy I am :)
>
> However, this still brings up the problem of the author demanding that we
> stop using their work - hence the agreement. They grant us unlimited
> license, or they don't build.
I think they do have a right to demand a 'text dump' or a copy of whatever
else you have as the area file, and you have a right to keep using it no
matter what they say or what has been said. Again, _both_ parties involved
have a copyright on the area, and therefore deserve a copy of the files, do
with as they please.
Glyciren
Ainya
: Ainya <ai...@potter.ieee.uh.edu> muttered something in
: <7dgc5n$reg$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>, quoting me:
: >: This would be because anyone given the
: >: ability to use OLC would be asked to read an agreement stating that
: >: anything they contribute to the mud becomes property of the mud, and
: >: that although the author would still retain copyright, building it on
: >: the mud grants us unlimited license. By using the account to OLC their
: >: area, they are consenting to the agreement.
: >
: >If you make this type of agreement clear before they begin building,
: >then they are entering into a verbal or writen contract which changes
: >the situation.
: >
: This is the point - I feel this is the only way to get round the
: situation in a manner which would be legally enforcable[1] in case of
: trouble. The author of the area creates something, I don't believe it
: would be possible to take away the rights of the author to 'rewrite'
: their creation somewhere else without a written, signed, witnessed
: contract and some sort of payment[1]. Therefore, I'm not even gonna argue
: with them. I don't have to give them a text dump, I'm just being nice.
: Cos that's the sorta guy I am :)
: However, this still brings up the problem of the author demanding that we
: stop using their work - hence the agreement. They grant us unlimited
: license, or they don't build.
: This method has been tried and tested, and it seems to work. At least,
: noone has yet got bolshy over it.
: Maybe I'm repeating myself/others, but I felt compelled to provide a
: summary.
I don't know enough about contractual law to even begin to debate this
point, either for or against it. I do think that it is worth mentioning
that you do give text dumps, whether you have to or not.
But I think the point came up on a mud which did not have any such
disclaimers, which brings us back to the collaborative work issue.
Ainya
Ainya
: > Therefore, I'm not even gonna argue
: > with them. I don't have to give them a text dump, I'm just being nice.
: > Cos that's the sorta guy I am :)
: > However, this still brings up the problem of the author demanding that we
: > stop using their work - hence the agreement. They grant us unlimited
: > license, or they don't build.
: else you have as the area file, and you have a right to keep using it no
: matter what they say or what has been said. Again, _both_ parties involved
: have a copyright on the area, and therefore deserve a copy of the files, do
: with as they please.
Uhm actually no, the imp or admin of the mud does not have rights to
distribution, as that is the sole right of the actual author. They do have
the right to use the area, as long as they wish, but they can not give out
copies without the author's permission.
Of course it comes back to, people don't always do the right thing.
Ainya.
On a side note, demanding is a strong word. They have a right to the area,
whether that is a text dump or an area file, and that should be honored.
But that doesn't mean the builder should be rude about it. A little bit of
honey goes a long way.
Ainya
: On 25 Mar 1999 05:25:02 GMT, Jon A. Lambert <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com>
: wrote:
: >arises: If I release Xmud 1.0 and it includes 5 different authors' areas,
: >wouldn't releasing Xmud 2.0 with 5 more additional areas require obtaining
: >permission from the authors of the original 5 areas? I dunno.
: >My inclination is to say yes. Any opinions?
: Hmmm... I would say no, as this is a long standing practice in the Diku
: community - each derivation has additional areas from the previous one. Of
: course, that might indeed be a bad practice, and may cause a major upheaval,
: with new derivations releasing either original areas or none at all. Both of
: those resulting scenarios would no doubt be an improvement IMO.
In order to publically release someone'a area you would need their
permission. Sometimes this is not feasible as people graduate or change
addresses. In which case you do what you can, and try to do what you
believe the original author woudl have wanted.
If an area is built for a specific mud, they have made an informal
agreement with _that_ mud and its Game Owners, and not every other mud
with that code base. If I release my CodeBase, I am giving permission for
peopel to use my code. It doesn't give me the right to release all the
areas written for it. I would probably ask the builders if they would like
to include their areas in the code release (many would like to have their
name and area distributed across the mud universe.... immortality at its
peak), but that is a decision they would have to make.
Glyciren
> the right to use the area, as long as they wish, but they can not give out
> copies without the author's permission.
Thats what i meant, sorry for leaving that part out.
Glyciren
Xochitli-Balam
Ainya wrote in message <7de3s6$ke7$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>...
>With your thinking, if someone wrote a story about their character, it
>becomes your property because its your MUD? I don't think so. The author
>of the story (as the author of an area) is still the author. They can go
>publish it and post it on every mud they played if they wanted. If you
>tried to publish it without their consent, even if you gave them credit,
>you are in serious violation of some copyrights. With this example,
>publishing a story would be equivilent to distributing their area.
>
I think you misinterpreted something along the way... :P
>The Builder WROTE the area, which gives them distribution rights. Thats
>their right as the author. You wrote the code which facilitated the
>creation, but you as the coder did not WRITE the area. They could give it
>to any mud they want. They could even realease it publically if they
>chose. You can't do anything about it.
>
Sure, they could always do whatever they wanted with their original work.
That was never in contention. The point would be to what extent they could
expect any control over the mud specific area file. As as far as the
following is concerned,
>: I think the author could ask, but shouldn't expect anything.
>: After all he/she could always rewrite the area into another mud's code.
>When you don't respect the right of your staff and builders, why should
>you expect any respect from them?
>: And if they didn't have backups, to hell with them! :)
>That kind of attitude is what gives us Imps a bad name.
Many muds, and ours is no exception, would look at the request on a case by
case basis and where feasible go to every effort to make the author's work
accessible, especially for the OLC work. I would certainly recommend that the
author get a copy of his work that went into the area immediately on
completion or submission. If the area is relatively unchanged, then sure, who
wouldn't give them a dump of their work? After that, especially if changes
are made, the mud shouldn't have any obligation to supply copies. Tell the
Imp who is paying for space that they ought to have backups ready in case the
author strolls by in a couple of years.
Basically, anybody who creates anything, and then expects someone else to hold
copies for them is a fool. I would never expect a mud to retain a copy of my
original area, they are free to modify it as they see fit after all. While
OLC might present difficulties for the author to keep neat and tidy records of
his area, he would still be a fool to not keep his own notes. HD's do crash,
code and areas do get stolen, etc.. I hope that qualifies what I meant by to
hell with them :P Apologies for getting ahead of myself.
>Of course possession is 9/10ths of the law. If you refuse to give them a
>copy of their area, then they can't really do anything about it. But it
>doesn't make it RIGHT. Unfortunately it seems that many Imms seem to
>forget about RIGHT and WRONG when they put up a MUD.
>
Muds are games, not libraries. When an area is submitted under the agreement
that the mud is free to do whatever they like with it within their gaming
environment, then possession is 10/10ths of the law.
Of course; everyone would agree with your attempt to point out that any mud
whose Imms favour considerate behaviour and gratitude towards the builders
will make the attempt to grant the requests where possible. Anything less and
people wouldn't bother to build at all.
Anything in copyrights, expectations and personal responsibility that has been
missed? ;)
Xochi
Joakim Boalt
Ainya <ai...@potter.ieee.uh.edu> wrote in message
news:7dgnun$s8j$2...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU...
> Uhm actually no, the imp or admin of the mud does not have rights to
> distribution, as that is the sole right of the actual author. They do have
> the right to use the area, as long as they wish, but they can not give out
> copies without the author's permission.
United States Code
TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
CHAPTER 2 - COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER
Sec. 201. Ownership of copyright
(c) Contributions to Collective Works. - Copyright in each separate
contribution to a collective work
is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests
initially in the author of the contribution.
In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights
under it, the owner of copyright in the
collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of
reproducing and distributing the contribution
as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective
work, and any later collective work in the
same series.
Should be reasonably applicable and clear up any remaining doubts. Not of
course for those of us
not inside the jurisdiction of US copyright code. :)
-
TJI
Xochitli-Balam
Joakim Boalt wrote in message <7dioa9$d35$1...@zingo.tninet.se>...
>
>United States Code
>TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
>CHAPTER 2 - COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER
>
<snip>
Ahhh, now that is interesting. Somewhat contrary to the opinion of this
thread, no? Did you find that on the web? I am sure lots of us would
appreciate the addy if you have it. :)
Good discussion all, thanks for the input!
Judson E. Knott
> >
> >United States Code
> >TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
> >CHAPTER 2 - COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER
> >
Nice, but what about those builders who live and build on muds run
outside the US? This is a world network, not a US network.
Ainya
: Ainya <ai...@potter.ieee.uh.edu> wrote in message
: news:7dgnun$s8j$2...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU...
:> Uhm actually no, the imp or admin of the mud does not have rights to
:> distribution, as that is the sole right of the actual author. They do have
:> the right to use the area, as long as they wish, but they can not give out
:> copies without the author's permission.
: United States Code
: TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
: CHAPTER 2 - COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER
: Sec. 201. Ownership of copyright
: (c) Contributions to Collective Works. - Copyright in each separate
: contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the
: collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the
: contribution.
: In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights
: under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to
: have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the
: contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of
: that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.
To apply this to our conversation..
Several builders build on a mud, making an area each. The Owner owns the
"collective works" (aka the whole mud world), but does not own each
individual area. Each builder has the right to distribute their individual
area as they see fit, as the sole copyright owner of _that_ area. The
Owner has distribution rights _ONLY_ under the condition that they
distribute it as part of the "collective works" as a whole.
Builder-A owns Area-A. Mud Owner A of MUD-A may only distribute Area-A if
they release _ALL_ of their Area files together. Mud Owner A may not
selectively distribute any areas which they did not Author.
Any subsequent MudOwners who take MUDA's AreaFiles may NOT selectively use
areas from MUDA's AreaFiles. They can use MUDA's Areafiles as a whole and
add on their own areas.
No matter which way you look at it, no one has the right to use Area-A
without Builder-A's permission. UNLESS MUDA has released all their areas
as a whole, and the new mud has kept all of MUDA's area intact.
On one of the other topics spawned from this thread: Area files are not
specifically part of the "mud code", as they are not "libraries" or
"header files" or "source file". However, a mud owner may release all of
their area files in conjunciton with their code release, thereby not
requiring the indivudual author's permission. But anyone who wishes to use
the areafiles, must use ALL of them or none of them.
mazri...@my-dejanews.com
Ainya <ai...@potter.ieee.uh.edu> wrote:
<snip copyright law>
> To apply this to our conversation..
> Several builders build on a mud, making an area each. The Owner owns the
> "collective works" (aka the whole mud world), but does not own each
> individual area. Each builder has the right to distribute their individual
> area as they see fit, as the sole copyright owner of _that_ area. The
> Owner has distribution rights _ONLY_ under the condition that they
> distribute it as part of the "collective works" as a whole.
>
> Builder-A owns Area-A. Mud Owner A of MUD-A may only distribute Area-A if
> they release _ALL_ of their Area files together. Mud Owner A may not
> selectively distribute any areas which they did not Author.
>
> Any subsequent MudOwners who take MUDA's AreaFiles may NOT selectively use
> areas from MUDA's AreaFiles. They can use MUDA's Areafiles as a whole and
> add on their own areas.
>
> No matter which way you look at it, no one has the right to use Area-A
> without Builder-A's permission. UNLESS MUDA has released all their areas
> as a whole, and the new mud has kept all of MUDA's area intact.
>
> On one of the other topics spawned from this thread: Area files are not
> specifically part of the "mud code", as they are not "libraries" or
> "header files" or "source file". However, a mud owner may release all of
> their area files in conjunciton with their code release, thereby not
> requiring the indivudual author's permission. But anyone who wishes to use
> the areafiles, must use ALL of them or none of them.
>
You know, I agree with everything you said here, but . . .
Enforcability. There is none. Most builders don't have the
funds necessary to enforce a copyright on the areas they build.
It would be financially unfeasible to do so. On top of that
we are only speaking of US copyright law and laws vary from
country to country.
What it comes down to is this: Welcome to the wild, wild west.
This is a frontier with no real law and no real law enforcement.
You're sole feasible recourse is to contact the offender's ISP
and hope that someone there is reasonable.
I suppose if all else fails you could just hack the offender, or
find someone to do that for you.
-Nat who doesn't particularly like vigilante justice, but . . .
Ainya
: In article <7djiml$7hq$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>,
As I stated before, just because they can get away with it, doesn't make
it RIGHT. And there are a good many injustices in the world, I just try my
best to avoid those that do wrong, and lead by example by doing right.
Ainya.
Joakim Boalt
Xochitli-Balam <xo...@mystic-adventure.org> wrote in message
news:J79L2.699$m3....@news0.telusplanet.net...
> >TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
> >CHAPTER 2 - COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER
> >
>
>
> Ahhh, now that is interesting. Somewhat contrary to the opinion of this
> thread, no? Did you find that on the web? I am sure lots of us would
> appreciate the addy if you have it. :)
>
> Good discussion all, thanks for the input!
Sorry, I thought I had it included.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/201.html
-
TJI
Joakim Boalt
Judson E. Knott <jek...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.05.990327...@eos01du.eos.ncsu.edu...
> Nice, but what about those builders who live and build on muds run
> outside the US? This is a world network, not a US network.
Well, lets delve into legalese then :)
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/international.html
"There is no such thing as an International Copyright that will
automatically protect an author's writings throughout the entire
world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country
depends, basically, on the national laws of that country. However,
most countries do offer protection to foreign works under certain
conditions, and these conditions have been greatly simplified by
international copyright treaties and conventions."
"Copyright protection is available for all unpublished works,
regardless of the nationality or domicile of the author. Published
works are eligible for copyright protection in the United States
if any one of the following conditions is met:
On the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national
or domiciliary of the United States or is a national, domiciliary, or
sovereign authority of a foreign nation that is a party to a copyright
treaty to which the United States is also a party, or is a stateless person
wherever that person may be domiciled; or
The work is first published in the United States or in a foreign nation
that,
on the date of first publication, is a party to the Universal Copyright
Convention; or the work comes within the scope of a Presidential
proclamation;
or
The work is first published on or after March 1, 1989, in a foreign nation
that on the date of first publication, is a party to the Berne Convention;
or,
if the work is not first published in a country party to the Berne
Convention,
it is published (on or after March 1,1989) within 30 days of first
publication
in a country that is party to the Berne Convention; or
the work, first published on or after March 1, 1989, is a pictorial,
graphic, or sculptural work that is incorporated in a permanent structure
located in the United States; or,
if the work, first published on or after March 1, 1989, is a published
audiovisual work, all the authors are legal entities with headquarters
in the United States."
mazri...@my-dejanews.com
Ainya <ai...@potter.ieee.uh.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> As I stated before, just because they can get away with it, doesn't make
> it RIGHT. And there are a good many injustices in the world, I just try my
> best to avoid those that do wrong, and lead by example by doing right.
>
> Ainya.
>
Commendable. I do the same. Tis a pity, however, that there are so
many people who DON'T do right and no real way to punish them
for their misdeeds.
-Nat
Ainya
: On 27 Mar 1999 21:31:01 GMT, Ainya <ai...@potter.ieee.uh.edu> wrote:
:>To apply this to our conversation..
:>Several builders build on a mud, making an area each. The Owner owns the
:>"collective works" (aka the whole mud world), but does not own each
:>individual area. Each builder has the right to distribute their individual
:>area as they see fit, as the sole copyright owner of _that_ area. The
:>Owner has distribution rights _ONLY_ under the condition that they
:>distribute it as part of the "collective works" as a whole.
:>
:>Builder-A owns Area-A. Mud Owner A of MUD-A may only distribute Area-A if
:>they release _ALL_ of their Area files together. Mud Owner A may not
:>selectively distribute any areas which they did not Author.
:>
:>Any subsequent MudOwners who take MUDA's AreaFiles may NOT selectively use
:>areas from MUDA's AreaFiles. They can use MUDA's Areafiles as a whole and
:>add on their own areas.
:>
: While I agree with this in principle, what if MudA comes with 5 areas.
: 4 of them fit your world perfectly. The 5th doesn't fit at all and
: makes you wonder WHY in the world MudA was using it. Are you really
: saying that the new mud can't use the 4 areas that it likes since it
: doesn't want to use the 5th one?
We were discussing the legal issues. Legally you can't just use 4 of the 5
areas that were distributed in a package. This is part of the copyrights
of using the areas. Whether you do or not is a different matter (again the
RIGHT and WRONG issue).
: If that is your view, what's to stop the mud from taking the 4 areas,
: making minor changes to them, and saying that they are NEW areas, in
: order to use them? What if you want to modify the mud school that
: comes with the mud, or take it out and replace it with your own?
If the builder has the time, effort, or money, they can take you and your
isp to court for violation of the copyright laws. Chances are they wont,
but that doesn't make it RIGHT or legal for you to do so.
: And what happens if some savvy builder says that he will build a zone
: for YOUR mud, with the caveat that you may NOT distribute it? Would
: that mean that MudA couldn't distribute ANY of their zones, because
: one of the ones in the world was not actually part of the
: collaboration? Or are the other zones available for distribution?
According to the Copyright law, as owner of the mud you have the right to
distribute his area as part of the collective areafile. However, as owner
of the mud you only have this right if you distribute _ALL_ of your areas
together.
: By the way, what about restringing zones? Changing the descriptions
: so that they fit in better with your world? Would that be allowed, or
: are you required to use the distributed zones "as-is"?
No you may modify the areas and add to them, however you must retain all
credits and copyrights to the original author. Depending on how much
modification you have done. Whether you just restrung the city name, or a
few stats on objects leads you into another legalistic issue on how much
of the area do you own. Either case, you may only distribute this area on
the condition that you release _ALL_ of your areas in a single package.
You still do not own the "area" you own the areafiles as a collaborative
work.
: Personally, I am of the opinion that if the zone is distributed with
: the codebase, whoever uses the codebase should be free to modify it as
: they want. Isn't that we want, muds that aren't carbon copies? I
: just don't see why it has to be an "all or none" thing, as long as the
: builder is duly credited.
your opinion has little bearing on the legal issues of copyrights. Whether
you follow them or not, is of no consequence to me, however your builders
may think otherwise, as they have the full support of the US copyright
law.
Jon A. Lambert
>rric...@lanminds.com wrote:
>
>: While I agree with this in principle, what if MudA comes with 5 areas.
>: 4 of them fit your world perfectly. The 5th doesn't fit at all and
>: makes you wonder WHY in the world MudA was using it. Are you really
>: saying that the new mud can't use the 4 areas that it likes since it
>: doesn't want to use the 5th one?
>
>We were discussing the legal issues. Legally you can't just use 4 of the 5
>areas that were distributed in a package. This is part of the copyrights
>of using the areas. Whether you do or not is a different matter (again the
>RIGHT and WRONG issue).
Legally I don't think that it is crytal clear.
<pulled from Joakim's post>
In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights
under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to
have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the
contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of
that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.
<end snip>
Note that collective works may be revised. I assume that one may legally
add additional areas to a collection or drop areas from a collection,
when releasing a revision of a collective work. Of course permission
would be required for the new areas. Permission to drop an authors work
from a revised collective work would NOT be required.
>: If that is your view, what's to stop the mud from taking the 4 areas,
>: making minor changes to them, and saying that they are NEW areas, in
>: order to use them? What if you want to modify the mud school that
>: comes with the mud, or take it out and replace it with your own?
>
>If the builder has the time, effort, or money, they can take you and your
>isp to court for violation of the copyright laws. Chances are they wont,
>but that doesn't make it RIGHT or legal for you to do so.
I'm sure she's debating your legal position.
>: And what happens if some savvy builder says that he will build a zone
>: for YOUR mud, with the caveat that you may NOT distribute it? Would
>: that mean that MudA couldn't distribute ANY of their zones, because
>: one of the ones in the world was not actually part of the
>: collaboration? Or are the other zones available for distribution?
>
>According to the Copyright law, as owner of the mud you have the right to
>distribute his area as part of the collective areafile. However, as owner
>of the mud you only have this right if you distribute _ALL_ of your areas
>together.
No, as part of _A_ collection and not individually. I don't know where
the _ALL_ requirement would come from (legally that is). Still the issue
is quite muddy, don't you think?
>: By the way, what about restringing zones? Changing the descriptions
>: so that they fit in better with your world? Would that be allowed, or
>: are you required to use the distributed zones "as-is"?
>
>No you may modify the areas and add to them, however you must retain all
>credits and copyrights to the original author. Depending on how much
>modification you have done. Whether you just restrung the city name, or a
>few stats on objects leads you into another legalistic issue on how much
>of the area do you own. Either case, you may only distribute this area on
>the condition that you release _ALL_ of your areas in a single package.
>You still do not own the "area" you own the areafiles as a collaborative
>work.
The BEST solution is to have builders agree to a contract beforehand.
If you wish for areas of your mud to NOT be redistributed by the authors,
it is incumbent that they sign an agreement which acknowledges the
areas to be "work for hire". If I'm not mistaken, this does not legally
have to accompany any sort of real monetary compensation. Outside of
If you don't care about whether the areas are redistributed by the author,
but wish to retain shared copyright to a contributed area, then the
agreement should acknowledge that fact.
>: Personally, I am of the opinion that if the zone is distributed with
>: the codebase, whoever uses the codebase should be free to modify it as
>: they want. Isn't that we want, muds that aren't carbon copies? I
>: just don't see why it has to be an "all or none" thing, as long as the
>: builder is duly credited.
>
>your opinion has little bearing on the legal issues of copyrights. Whether
>you follow them or not, is of no consequence to me, however your builders
>may think otherwise, as they have the full support of the US copyright
>law.
Clearly the excerpt that I posted above states that the owner of the
collection has the right to distribute a "revision of that collective work".
What is a revision, if not a modification?
--
Boff
<7dohhf$2...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>:
>The BEST solution is to have builders agree to a contract beforehand.
>If you wish for areas of your mud to NOT be redistributed by the
>authors, it is incumbent that they sign an agreement which acknowledges
>the areas to be "work for hire". If I'm not mistaken, this does not
>legally have to accompany any sort of real monetary compensation.
>Outside of If you don't care about whether the areas are redistributed
>by the author, but wish to retain shared copyright to a contributed
>area, then the agreement should acknowledge that fact.
Hear hear, and the point I've been trying to make. Get it in a contract.
Then they can sue your arse off without a chance of getting anywhere
except poorer.
IIRC, IANAL, etc, blah, you do need to provide some sort of recompense
for work done for it to be legally binding. Hence such wonderful terms as
'peppercorn rent' - a parcel of land was rented to the tenant for 100
years for the sum of a peppercorn - no real monetary value, but
/something/ passed for legal purposes.
I've had it happen in the past where my coding work was paid for a shell
account on the server. The shell account was more than enough
compensation (and pretty darned useful) for my work, and yes - the owner
of the mud /was/ a lawyer.
Ainya
:>rric...@lanminds.com wrote:
:>
:>: While I agree with this in principle, what if MudA comes with 5 areas.
:>: 4 of them fit your world perfectly. The 5th doesn't fit at all and
:>: makes you wonder WHY in the world MudA was using it. Are you really
:>: saying that the new mud can't use the 4 areas that it likes since it
:>: doesn't want to use the 5th one?
:>
:>We were discussing the legal issues. Legally you can't just use 4 of the 5
:>areas that were distributed in a package. This is part of the copyrights
:>of using the areas. Whether you do or not is a different matter (again the
:>RIGHT and WRONG issue).
: Legally I don't think that it is crytal clear.
: <pulled from Joakim's post>
: In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights
: under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to
: have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the
: contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of
: that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.
: <end snip>
: Note that collective works may be revised. I assume that one may legally
: add additional areas to a collection or drop areas from a collection,
: when releasing a revision of a collective work. Of course permission
: would be required for the new areas. Permission to drop an authors work
: from a revised collective work would NOT be required.
Your statement is correct, but only the original distributor of the
collection may do so. The only person who has the right to "revise" the
collective work is the original distributor (the owner of the collective
areafiles).
The individual area files make up the collective areafiles. You can not
selectively use one of the areafiles, as that would directly infringe upon
the original author's copyrights, as the SOLE owner and distributor of
that single area. You may use the collective areafiles in its entirey as
that is part of the copyright rights of the owner of the game.
:>: If that is your view, what's to stop the mud from taking the 4 areas,
:>: making minor changes to them, and saying that they are NEW areas, in
:>: order to use them? What if you want to modify the mud school that
:>: comes with the mud, or take it out and replace it with your own?
:>
:>If the builder has the time, effort, or money, they can take you and your
:>isp to court for violation of the copyright laws. Chances are they wont,
:>but that doesn't make it RIGHT or legal for you to do so.
: I'm sure she's debating your legal position.
Well if you want to use a specific area, you should contact that indivdual
builder, as it is their area. (not really sure what you're trying to point
out in Kira's paragraph)
:>: And what happens if some savvy builder says that he will build a zone
:>: for YOUR mud, with the caveat that you may NOT distribute it? Would
:>: that mean that MudA couldn't distribute ANY of their zones, because
:>: one of the ones in the world was not actually part of the
:>: collaboration? Or are the other zones available for distribution?
:>
:>According to the Copyright law, as owner of the mud you have the right to
:>distribute his area as part of the collective areafile. However, as owner
:>of the mud you only have this right if you distribute _ALL_ of your areas
:>together.
: No, as part of _A_ collection and not individually. I don't know where
: the _ALL_ requirement would come from (legally that is). Still the issue
: is quite muddy, don't you think?
I think you missed the point. The owner of the mud only owns the
"collective area files" as a whole which is the ENTIRE world, not just
selective areas. (unless he authored them) As the copyright only exists as
long as it is part of the whole.
:>: By the way, what about restringing zones? Changing the descriptions
:>: so that they fit in better with your world? Would that be allowed, or
:>: are you required to use the distributed zones "as-is"?
:>
:>No you may modify the areas and add to them, however you must retain all
:>credits and copyrights to the original author. Depending on how much
:>modification you have done. Whether you just restrung the city name, or a
:>few stats on objects leads you into another legalistic issue on how much
:>of the area do you own. Either case, you may only distribute this area on
:>the condition that you release _ALL_ of your areas in a single package.
:>You still do not own the "area" you own the areafiles as a collaborative
:>work.
: The BEST solution is to have builders agree to a contract beforehand.
: If you wish for areas of your mud to NOT be redistributed by the authors,
: it is incumbent that they sign an agreement which acknowledges the
: areas to be "work for hire". If I'm not mistaken, this does not legally
: have to accompany any sort of real monetary compensation. Outside of
: If you don't care about whether the areas are redistributed by the author,
: but wish to retain shared copyright to a contributed area, then the
: agreement should acknowledge that fact.
I think this is a very good policy, contracts are a perfect way to decalre
who exactly has copyrights over an area built. It also takes you into
contractual law which I know nothing about.
:>: Personally, I am of the opinion that if the zone is distributed with
:>: the codebase, whoever uses the codebase should be free to modify it as
:>: they want. Isn't that we want, muds that aren't carbon copies? I
:>: just don't see why it has to be an "all or none" thing, as long as the
:>: builder is duly credited.
:>
:>your opinion has little bearing on the legal issues of copyrights. Whether
:>you follow them or not, is of no consequence to me, however your builders
:>may think otherwise, as they have the full support of the US copyright
:>law.
: Clearly the excerpt that I posted above states that the owner of the
: collection has the right to distribute a "revision of that collective work".
: What is a revision, if not a modification?
Taking an individual area out of a larger collection and renameing it is
just short of plagarism. The degree of course is on an individual basis.
The only people who have the right to release the area, is
1) the builder
2) the owner of the original game, as part of the collective areafiles
3) any subsequent game owners who use the previous collective areafiles in
its entirety.
The owner of the mud does not have copyright of the individual areas that
make up the collective whole. The owner may not 'chop' up the collective
whole as that would handle the areafiles as individual areas which he
does not have the right to do.
An area file & the collective areafiles are clearly defined, several times
over. It gets muddy when you introduce contracts or agreements (prior to
the building) and when the collective areafiles have been incorporated
into several others, and released.
Jon A. Lambert
>Jon A. Lambert <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>: On 29 Mar 1999 15:54:05 GMT, Ainya said:
>:
>:>areas that were distributed in a package. This is part of the copyrights
>:>of using the areas. Whether you do or not is a different matter (again the
>:>RIGHT and WRONG issue).
>: Legally I don't think that it is crytal clear.
>: <pulled from Joakim's post>
>: In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights
>: under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to
>: have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the
>: contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of
>: that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.
>: <end snip>
>: Note that collective works may be revised. I assume that one may legally
>: add additional areas to a collection or drop areas from a collection,
>: when releasing a revision of a collective work. Of course permission
>: would be required for the new areas. Permission to drop an authors work
>: from a revised collective work would NOT be required.
>
>Your statement is correct, but only the original distributor of the
>collection may do so. The only person who has the right to "revise" the
>collective work is the original distributor (the owner of the collective
>areafiles).
>
Right, and the orignal distributor is the owner of the copyright on the
collective work. As the copyright owner they may grant distribution
rights to others for that collective work. Typically this is done
through a license. And viola, we have a Diku distribution, with
descendents Circle, Merc, Envy, Rom, etc. Note the license does not
grant any distribution rights to "indivdual" areas, it would not be
valid then. It does however grant distribution and modification rights
to the "collective" work.
>The individual area files make up the collective areafiles. You can not
>selectively use one of the areafiles, as that would directly infringe upon
>the original author's copyrights, as the SOLE owner and distributor of
>that single area. You may use the collective areafiles in its entirey as
>that is part of the copyright rights of the owner of the game.
No. But the copyright owner of a collective work can REMOVE, ADD or
EDIT areas as part of a revision. Yes, they can not distribute an individual
area without permission, however.
>:>
>:>According to the Copyright law, as owner of the mud you have the right to
>:>distribute his area as part of the collective areafile. However, as owner
>:>of the mud you only have this right if you distribute _ALL_ of your areas
>:>together.
>: No, as part of _A_ collection and not individually. I don't know where
>: the _ALL_ requirement would come from (legally that is). Still the issue
>: is quite muddy, don't you think?
>
>I think you missed the point.
Here is the point I am trying to make. Assume XMud 1.0 is released with
areas A - K included (all with individual author approval). The owner of
XMud decides to do a major revision, 2.0. For whatever reasons, technical
or artistic, they decide to include new areas L - Z (with permmision from the
respective authors), drop areas G - K for artistic reasons and make
changes to areas A, C and E for technical reasons. I believe this
constitutes a revised work and is quite within their copyrights.
>:>your opinion has little bearing on the legal issues of copyrights. Whether
>:>you follow them or not, is of no consequence to me, however your builders
>:>may think otherwise, as they have the full support of the US copyright
>:>law.
>
>: Clearly the excerpt that I posted above states that the owner of the
>: collection has the right to distribute a "revision of that collective work".
>: What is a revision, if not a modification?
>
>Taking an individual area out of a larger collection and renameing it is
>just short of plagarism. The degree of course is on an individual basis.
Thats not a point of contention.
>The owner of the mud does not have copyright of the individual areas that
>make up the collective whole. The owner may not 'chop' up the collective
>whole as that would handle the areafiles as individual areas which he
>does not have the right to do.
There are numerous examples of poetry and short story collections
which are reprinted with individual entries dropped and added. I'm not
talking about "handling" areas as individual entities, I'm talking about
revising a collective work. What do YOU think "the right to distribute
a revision of a collective work" means then? If you insist on _ALL_
and _UNMODIFIED_ pertaining to that collective work, then what
constitutes a revision?
Ainya
The point being argued was whether the END USER had the right to use just
4 of 5 areas from a collective work. You are arguing quite effectively my
point, which is only the copyright owner (the mud owner) may make
modifications to the collective work.
:>The individual area files make up the collective areafiles. You can not
:>selectively use one of the areafiles, as that would directly infringe upon
:>the original author's copyrights, as the SOLE owner and distributor of
:>that single area. You may use the collective areafiles in its entirey as
:>that is part of the copyright rights of the owner of the game.
: No. But the copyright owner of a collective work can REMOVE, ADD or
: EDIT areas as part of a revision. Yes, they can not distribute an individual
: area without permission, however.
That was all I was trying to say. That you couldn't selectively use an
area file from a collection.
:>:>According to the Copyright law, as owner of the mud you have the right to
:>:>distribute his area as part of the collective areafile. However, as owner
:>:>of the mud you only have this right if you distribute _ALL_ of your areas
:>:>together.
:>: No, as part of _A_ collection and not individually. I don't know where
:>: the _ALL_ requirement would come from (legally that is). Still the issue
:>: is quite muddy, don't you think?
:>
:>I think you missed the point.
: Here is the point I am trying to make. Assume XMud 1.0 is released with
: areas A - K included (all with individual author approval). The owner of
: XMud decides to do a major revision, 2.0. For whatever reasons, technical
: or artistic, they decide to include new areas L - Z (with permmision from
: respective authors), drop areas G - K for artistic reasons and make
: the changes to areas A, C and E for technical reasons. I believe this
: constitutes a revised work and is quite within their copyrights.
The original argument we were discussing was whether or not you needed the
individual author's permission to release areas. The point I was arguing
was: you can only do so if you release all your areas together.
Now you're going into specifics that was not initially argued, and have
effectively proven a point which I was not contending.
:>:>your opinion has little bearing on the legal issues of copyrights. Whether
:>:>you follow them or not, is of no consequence to me, however your builders
:>:>may think otherwise, as they have the full support of the US copyright
:>:>law.
:>
:>: Clearly the excerpt that I posted above states that the owner of the
:>: collection has the right to distribute a "revision of that collective
:>: work." What is a revision, if not a modification?
:>
:>Taking an individual area out of a larger collection and renameing it is
:>just short of plagarism. The degree of course is on an individual basis.
: Thats not a point of contention.
Well actually you and I got off topic, I was trying to bring it back to
the original point: which had to do with renaming/modifying a single area
from a collective work. (as Kira's example was s/he felt s/he had a
right to use a mudschool from a collection released and rename it for
their mud)
Ainya
rric...@lanminds.com
>
>Well actually you and I got off topic, I was trying to bring it back to
>the original point: which had to do with renaming/modifying a single area
>from a collective work. (as Kira's example was s/he felt s/he had a
>right to use a mudschool from a collection released and rename it for
>their mud)
>
>Ainya
Actually.. my question was "What if you do NOT want to use the
mudschool released with the mud, but want to use the other areas?"
(Maybe you have made so many changes that it's just not practical to
use the mudschool, or else you may just not like the idea of them.)
Kira Skydancer
Remove "not" when replying by email
Jon A. Lambert
>
>On 30 Mar 1999 17:17:21 GMT, Ainya <ai...@potter.ieee.uh.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>the original point: which had to do with renaming/modifying a single area
>>from a collective work. (as Kira's example was s/he felt s/he had a
>>right to use a mudschool from a collection released and rename it for
>>their mud)
>>
>>Ainya
>
>mudschool released with the mud, but want to use the other areas?"
>(Maybe you have made so many changes that it's just not practical to
>use the mudschool, or else you may just not like the idea of them.)
Yes, you certainly can.
If I release MudX with 5 areas and give you a copy, you can spind, fold
and mutilate your copy all you want. In the absence of a license or oral
agreement you have an implied license to USE it for the purposes it is
intended (running a mud). Note that running software for its intended
purposes is considered, legally, to be akin to a non-exclusive license
to perform a work, like a play. Consider the collective work (MudX with
5 areas) to be a book of poems you were given and now own. You can write
in its margins, white-out or highlight portions of it, and even rip out
pages to line a bird cage.
However in the absence of an express license agreement you may not create
a derived work. Note that your personal copy, no matter how changed, is
NOT considered a derived work until you actually intend to distribute it.
Obviously at that point you would have to obtain permission from the
copyright holder. You may at any time lend your copy to someone else and
even sell your copy.
Should I give you a copy on condition that you agree to an explicit
license, then you may have additional rights or restrictions on your
use of that copy. For instance, many commercial software vendors'
licenses contain restrictions on modification. Obviously in the absence
of such a license provision, you would have the right to modify it
otherwise they wouldn't have bothered writing it into the license.
The GNU license gives you additional rights you normally wouldn't have,
like the right to create a derived work and the right to redistribute
the software. Of course it also adds restrictions.
How likely is it that you obtained mud code/areas without a license or
that have not been released public domain? Such discussion is quite
hypothetical, otherwise I could have cited a specific example instead of
making up one up like above.
Jon A. Lambert
>
>Jon A. Lambert <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>: On 29 Mar 1999 20:47:13 GMT, Ainya said:
>:>Jon A. Lambert <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>:
>: collective work. As the copyright owner they may grant distribution
>: rights to others for that collective work. Typically this is done
>: through a license. And viola, we have a Diku distribution, with
>: descendents Circle, Merc, Envy, Rom, etc. Note the license does not
>: grant any distribution rights to "indivdual" areas, it would not be
>: valid then. It does however grant distribution and modification rights
>: to the "collective" work.
>
>The point being argued was whether the END USER had the right to use just
>4 of 5 areas from a collective work. You are arguing quite effectively my
>point, which is only the copyright owner (the mud owner) may make
>modifications to the collective work.
No, the end user CAN make modifications to the collected work. Such
modifications do not constitute the creation of a derived work. A work
cannot be considered a derived work until it is distributed. Thus
my reference above to the copyright holder having to grant distribution
rights before a derived work can be created.
Note the last three sentences are referring specifically to Diku.
Strike "modification" from the last sentence and substitute "create
derived works". That is my mistake. Sorry for the confusion. :)
>:>The individual area files make up the collective areafiles. You can not
>:>selectively use one of the areafiles, as that would directly infringe upon
>:>the original author's copyrights, as the SOLE owner and distributor of
>:>that single area. You may use the collective areafiles in its entirey as
>:>that is part of the copyright rights of the owner of the game.
>
>: No. But the copyright owner of a collective work can REMOVE, ADD or
>: EDIT areas as part of a revision. Yes, they can not distribute an individual
>: area without permission, however.
>
>That was all I was trying to say. That you couldn't selectively use an
>area file from a collection.
Your may be misapplying a copyright holder's right to create derived works
to personal use rights.
Specific example: I just downloaded the new Java SDK. I then proceed to
delete the awt and applet libraries. Your saying I can't do that, only Sun
has that right.
Mud example: I just downloaded MudX. I delete Mud School or rename Mud
School to MudX school. Your saying I can't do that, only the copyright
holder to MudX can.
>Well actually you and I got off topic, I was trying to bring it back to
>the original point: which had to do with renaming/modifying a single area
>from a collective work. (as Kira's example was s/he felt s/he had a
>right to use a mudschool from a collection released and rename it for
>their mud)
I think they do have that right. It's their personal copy.
Mical
You are partially correct as I understand it. IF the mud you code for has a
written statement AT THE TIME YOU START CODING OR BUILDING for that mud, stating
that the right to copy the code/area remains with the mud, the person coding or
building looses that part of their copyright, and the mud retains it.
Mical, Builder of Boxes
Ainya wrote:
> Xochitli-Balam (xo...@mytic-adventure.org) wrote:
> <snip>
> : Had a distasteful situation recently with an old Imm. After a long period of
> : inactivity he returned and demanded that we remove his area from the mud.
> <snip>
> : It brings up an interesting point though. We feel that once an area is
> : submitted and coded into the game, it is ours to do with as we see fit. The
> : code is our property, and by submitting the area an author, while still
> : retaining creative copyright to the ideas within the area, relinquishes
> : control of what happens to the area while at that mud. Distribution outside
> : the mud is another thing entirely.
> <snip>
>
> If the area was written for your mud, you own a copyright. The author also
> owns a copyright to it, as well as all distribution rights. This dual
> ownership is made possible because it falls under collaborative works, ie
> the area was written with/for your code. With this in mind, you have every
> right to use his area or not or change it if you wish with all the proper
> documentation and credit. You do not, however, have the right to
> distribute it or share it with any other individuals, which is the sole
> right of its author.
>
> Even had the immortal written it for another mud and given it to you. The
> permission was granted to integrate this area as part of your game. You
> then have the right to use it or not, as it is now part of your game.
>
> This also applies to any code that was written for your mud, jointly or
> patched in (legitimately) from an outside source.
>
> Ainya, Imp of Prophecies of the Dragon.
NightShade
Xochitli-Balam wrote in message ...
>It brings up an interesting point though. We feel that once an area is
>submitted and coded into the game, it is ours to do with as we see fit. The
>code is our property, and by submitting the area an author, while still
>retaining creative copyright to the ideas within the area, relinquishes
>control of what happens to the area while at that mud. Distribution outside
>the mud is another thing entirely.
First, remember that most MUDs are free. That does not mean open to copying.
Yet, as there's no money involved, I think we should have a pragmatical
approach.
Every coder who writes a file for a specific work owns this work. Yet, as
soon as it is implemented into that MUD, the MUD gains the full right to use
and modify this file, without asking for the creator's permission. That's
about it.
Some elements need to be mentionned more specifically, though:
- MUD X has no mean of preventing the coder to reuse his work on other
worlds (and I don't refer to areas specifically). EG, if CoderA has written
a set of handy routines on MUD X and starts working for MUD Y a couple of
months later, the methods he has hacked on MUD Y are still his own and he
may implement them on MUD Y.
- If MUD X 1.0 evolves to MUD X 2.0 but it remains strictly the same MUD
(patching the driver to a new release, moving it to a new codebase), the MUD
keeps the right of using the piece of code.
- If MUD X 1.0 gets replaced by MUD X 2.0, bearing another name or
implementing major changes in the game system (for instance, moving from a
pure H&S MUD to an RP MUD), MUD X 2.0 cannot reuse the coders work without
his consent. This may be harder to differenciate, but basically, if in the
previous example, the MUD remains the same, it may keep the files, whereas
in this example, the MUD is actually a new one.
- If MUD X creates an offspring into MUD Y, the coder has the right to use
his areas in the offspring. He has the right to deny MUD Y the right of use
as well. Remember that coding for a MUD is a matter of commitment - if I'm
commited to MUD X, this doesn't mean I'm automatically commited to MUD Y
even if MUD X shuts down.
- Finally, if MUD X goes into public release (mainly the driver and "stock"
components), the release staff should make sure it has the author consent
for any piece of code they publish.
--
NightShade
rric...@lanminds.com
<mario.l...@getthetrapsentenceoutahere.span.ch> wrote:
>Some elements need to be mentionned more specifically, though:
>- MUD X has no mean of preventing the coder to reuse his work on other
>worlds (and I don't refer to areas specifically). EG, if CoderA has written
>a set of handy routines on MUD X and starts working for MUD Y a couple of
>months later, the methods he has hacked on MUD Y are still his own and he
>may implement them on MUD Y.
I believe that you meant "The methods he has hacked on Mud X"
>- If MUD X 1.0 gets replaced by MUD X 2.0, bearing another name or
>implementing major changes in the game system (for instance, moving from a
>pure H&S MUD to an RP MUD), MUD X 2.0 cannot reuse the coders work without
>his consent. This may be harder to differenciate, but basically, if in the
>previous example, the MUD remains the same, it may keep the files, whereas
>in this example, the MUD is actually a new one.
Umm.. could you explain more about this? Are you saying that if I am
running a stock Circle mud, and decide after a year that I am going to
enforce RP, and somehow actually succeed at that!, that my mud is
suddenly NOT a stock Circle mud? I am trying to see how altering the
playing environment has any bearing on the right to use code that is
currently in the mud. Esp since, in my not too vast experience, the
coders generally tend to say "We want to implement these features",
but then leave what the actual playing environment is going to be like
up to other imms. For example, they may decide clancode is good, and
what it will do, but leave the reasoning for clans, and how they fit
into the social environment, up to someone else. This generalization
may apply less to builders.
Lanfear
anyone actually
taken legal action over "copyright" infringment on a mud themselves?
i don't care if you know someone who was going to do it, i want to see
if anyone
has actually been to court/hired lawyers/etc themselves, be it for
areas, code, helpfile
writing, whatever, and what was the end result? perhaps this person
could shed some
light to end this pseudo-legal prattle and let us know what the end
result was?
Aristotle
>Every coder who writes a file for a specific work owns this work. Yet, as
>soon as it is implemented into that MUD, the MUD gains the full right to use
>and modify this file, without asking for the creator's permission. That's
>about it.
This is complete and utter BS. For this to be true, the creator and the mud
admins would have to have some kind of PRIOR agreement. If the mud admins do
not have this in writing, then most likely they have NO PROOF the creator did
the work as "work for hire".
If the admins PAID MONEY for the creator to work there, then that payment can
serve as "evidence" that it was work-for-hire. The simple fact that the
creator made their 'area' or whatever on a mud does NOT mean there is an
automatic transfer of copyright ownership. In fact, it works the other way
around.
The default condition is that the author holds ALL the rights to his work. If
you do not have some kind of agreement that you can PROVE, the author still
owns the copyright.
-Aristotle (thre...@threshold-rpg.com)
======================================================================
Join us at Threshold!
~*~ High Fantasy Multi-User Online Role Playing Game ~*~
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -or- telnet threshold-rpg.com 23
crimef...@my-dejanews.com
"Xochitli-Balam" <xo...@mytic-adventure.org> wrote:
Okay, I'm going to give my own view of this...
> Had a distasteful situation recently with an old Imm. After a long period of
> inactivity he returned and demanded that we remove his area from the mud.
> Interestingly enough, it was under this Imm that we began the policy that any
> area submitted to the mud was ours indefinitely and that we reserved the right
> to use it or not. Now since we are genuinely worried that our dear friend
> will get buck teeth if he sucks his thumb any longer, we are rewriting the
> quests and pulling the objects etc etc.
It is my view that if a zone was given to your mud to use and sometime later
the author comes and demands the thing be taken off for no good reason I
think they owner should have a right of refusal. However, if the author has
a reason...such as the author believes the owner of the mud has been engaging
in misconduct...and the Aber community had a few of these occur...then the
author's wishes should be granted.
> It brings up an interesting point though. We feel that once an area is
> submitted and coded into the game, it is ours to do with as we see fit. The
> code is our property, and by submitting the area an author, while still
> retaining creative copyright to the ideas within the area, relinquishes
> control of what happens to the area while at that mud. Distribution outside
> the mud is another thing entirely.
Well I'll agree with that...but the author should have a right to what they
wrote...if it was written under OLC, the owner should be obligated to send
the author a copy of the zone. A side point, there's been a number of cases
where hackers break into servers and wipe out everything...that turns into
lost work that won't be recovered. The author of the zone since they wrote
it should also be permitted to give it out to other muds if they
wish...unless there's some agreement that they wouldn't give it out to other
muds.
Crimefighter
Promised Land MUD
http://www.promisedland.mudservices.com
The COMPLETE Abermud List
http://members.xoom.com/smlucas
Jacob Hallen
Aristotle <thre...@threshold-rpg.com> wrote:
>The default condition is that the author holds ALL the rights to his work. If
>you do not have some kind of agreement that you can PROVE, the author still
>owns the copyright.
This has an interesting twist to it. If there is code that is known be
produced by an entity calling itself Aristotele, there may be
substantial problems for the individual behind the alias to make
claims to the copyright of the code. We have several instances of
wizard characters on Genesis that have changed hands without the
knowledge of the administrators. We also have cases where people have
shared wizard identities without our knowledge.
Therefore, if you want to claim your copyright, you need to make
explicit copyright statements including your legally accepted name in
all your files. Otherwise it is very easy to dispute your rights to
the work.
In Genesis, we have a copyright agreement that you have to agree upon
in order to be allowed to code. The agreement says, in brief, that
unless you put an explicit copyright statement in your files, the
copyright of your code is held by a non-profit organisation connected
to the game. If you add a copyright statement you retain the
copyright, but you grant the right to use and modify your code to
Genesis.
In practice, noone exercises the right to retain the copyright.
Jacob Hallen
sthrn...@my-dejanews.com
"Glyciren" <glyc...@pserc-2.ece.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> > If the area was written for your mud, you own a copyright. The author also
> > owns a copyright to it, as well as all distribution rights.
>
This is exactly why I keep a copy of all areas I build..then again I build
them in text, so I always HAVE a copy.
> So what your saying is that the imm that made the area has a right to demand
> that you send him a copy of the area files so that he can put them on his
> own MUD, or give them to another MUD? I think many admins need to realize
> that buiders DO have this right, even if you are angry at them and have
> removed them from you MUD. They have a right to a copy of that which is
> their's. Seems pretty logical to me... just wish it was that logical to
> some admins I have worked for in the past.
>
> Glyciren
sthrn...@my-dejanews.com
"Xochitli-Balam" <xo...@mystic-adventure.org> wrote:
>
> I can't see how the imm could demand a copy of the area files. His copyright
> extends to the creative ideas behind the area, not the code of the game. And
> what Mud in their right mind would give area files away when it is unique to
> their mud? I think the author could ask, but shouldn't expect anything.
> After all he/she could always rewrite the area into another mud's code. And
> if they didn't have backups, to hell with them! :)
>
Because the area files are his (or her) original work. So certainly they
should be able to demand a copy of them...although if you have sense you will
keep a copy from the beginning IMHO. And certainly he/she could rewrite the
area for another mud, and have every right to do so, as well as distribute it
publically on the net or do anything else he/she chooses with it.
Jon A. Lambert
>
>In article <SiiK2.8546$5p5....@news1.telusplanet.net>,
> "Xochitli-Balam" <xo...@mystic-adventure.org> wrote:
>>
>> I can't see how the imm could demand a copy of the area files. His copyright
>> extends to the creative ideas behind the area, not the code of the game. And
>> what Mud in their right mind would give area files away when it is unique to
>> their mud? I think the author could ask, but shouldn't expect anything.
>> After all he/she could always rewrite the area into another mud's code. And
>> if they didn't have backups, to hell with them! :)
>>
>Because the area files are his (or her) original work. So certainly they
>should be able to demand a copy of them...although if you have sense you will
>keep a copy from the beginning IMHO. And certainly he/she could rewrite the
>area for another mud, and have every right to do so, as well as distribute it
>publically on the net or do anything else he/she chooses with it.
A builder/author has no more right to demand a copy of an area file, than
Stephen King a right has to demand you give him a copy of 'Carrie'.
Aristotle
>Therefore, if you want to claim your copyright, you need to make
>explicit copyright statements including your legally accepted name in
>all your files. Otherwise it is very easy to dispute your rights to
>the work.
That is a different issue. What you are talking about here when someone has
to prove that certain code/work is theirs. The issue being discussed here is
not one of 'who wrote this code' but 'coder A wrote it for MUD X, so who owns
the rights to the code, coder A or MUD X'.
The burden is on the author to prove he wrote a certain work. Once that is
established, the burden is on someone else (the mud in our discussion) to
prove the author explicitly contracted away his/her rights to it.
Angel
Glyciren wrote
>> They do have the right to use the area, as long as they wish, but they
can not give out
>> copies without the author's permission.
Does anyone use some sort of agreement that spells out to Creators that
their code stays as "part of the mud" even if they leave ..sort of a
contract -type of thing?
Would this in fact mean that they foregoe their intellectual copyright
claims to such code?
If that is so, then the mud could give out copies as it pleased them, or use
it in what ever mannor they saw fit. After all, most Admins pay money to own
the site a mud is run on. As such, he theoretically owns the stuff on his
machine (doesn't he?) ..he can shut out players, refuse entry, etc
...just food for thought
Richard
> Does anyone use some sort of agreement that spells out to Creators that
> their code stays as "part of the mud" even if they leave ..sort of a
> contract -type of thing?
Hell yes. I've been reading this thread and have had to restrain myself
from following it up wanting to read most of it first. I find it
laughable the idea that someone should expect to retain ownership of
something they contribute to the mud - the very idea that they can
withdraw permission to use it is something I consider stupid. When we
were in development to open we had a copyright that all creators had to
agree that their work was contributed to the mud and the mud effectively
owned it. If someone came along and claimed that they wanted their work
back, I'd tell them where to go. Maybe some mud administrators are happy
with the idea that the code contributed to their mud (along with
ownership or not) might also be found on other muds, but personally I
think they very concept degrades the worth of the code.
If a mudlib coder asked for his code to be withdrawn from the game, I
doubt anyone would even consider it, especially if it was core code that
the rest of the game relied on. Why should area coders expect any different.
> Would this in fact mean that they foregoe their intellectual copyright
> claims to such code?
I would hope so, and if it turned out that the copyright was invalid I
would suggest they take me to court.
> If that is so, then the mud could give out copies as it pleased them, or use
> it in what ever mannor they saw fit. After all, most Admins pay money to own
> the site a mud is run on. As such, he theoretically owns the stuff on his
> machine (doesn't he?) ..he can shut out players, refuse entry, etc
Well, we considered the mud to belong to all the creators - but I guess
it was more or less like communism, the higher up the hierarchy, the more
it belonged to you :) Well, thats my uneducated opinion of communism.
Anyway, if you value your mud and the area coders, you are hardly going
to alienate them by giving away their work or setting a precedent that
may lead to that.
--
Richard Tew (above spudent -> student, lame spam avoidance thingy)
Aristotle
>Hell yes. I've been reading this thread and have had to restrain myself
>from following it up wanting to read most of it first. I find it
>laughable the idea that someone should expect to retain ownership of
>something they contribute to the mud
You laugh at the law? That sure is responsible.
> - the very idea that they can
>withdraw permission to use it is something I consider stupid.
Ah yes, it is "stupid" for authors, programmers, and other such people to
actually care about their work and care about whether or not other people
benefit from it without their permission and without compensation.
Perhaps when all you do is use some online creation tool to right
barely-better-than-stock crappy areas you don't care about your intellectual
property rights. But when someone spends heaps of time working on something
that is quality, you shouldn't be surprised that they actually feel like THEY
are entitled to control/own THEIR work.
mwi...@my-dejanews.com
thre...@threshold-rpg.com (Aristotle) wrote:
> In article <7e01bl$hej$1...@minix.vbo.dec.com>, "NightShade"
<mario.l...@getthetrapsentenceoutahere.span.ch> wrote:
> >Every coder who writes a file for a specific work owns this work. Yet, as
> >soon as it is implemented into that MUD, the MUD gains the full right to use
> >and modify this file, without asking for the creator's permission. That's
> >about it.
>
> This is complete and utter BS. For this to be true, the creator and the mud
> admins would have to have some kind of PRIOR agreement. If the mud admins do
> not have this in writing, then most likely they have NO PROOF the creator did
> the work as "work for hire".
Ari is absolutely correct. However, if this position is specifically spelled
out in your administrative policies and you ensure that all potential staff
members are familiar with that policy before they begin work, that can count
as a prior agreement. But you have to be clear, upfront, and allow no
exceptions.
> If the admins PAID MONEY for the creator to work there, then that payment can
> serve as "evidence" that it was work-for-hire. The simple fact that the
> creator made their 'area' or whatever on a mud does NOT mean there is an
> automatic transfer of copyright ownership. In fact, it works the other way
> around.
An exchange of money is not *required* for a work to legally count as
"work-for-hire", although it helps a great deal. (Exchange of money is also
not sufficient evidence in and of itself - a number of legal sources on the
subject were referenced here recently if you want to check things out
yourself.) A professionally run organization should have little trouble
meeting the other qualifications: hiring and termination procedures, control
of time, place, and method of work, extended term of employment,
responsibility for underlings or subcontractors, and a few other items I
can't recall off the top of my head.
> The default condition is that the author holds ALL the rights to his work. If
> you do not have some kind of agreement that you can PROVE, the author still
> owns the copyright.
Ari is again absolutely correct. If you want to protect what rights you feel
you may have to work written by your staff, you have to be clear and
specific. You'll have to clearly define the relationship between the mud and
it's staff as an employer-employee relationship, you'll have to be upfront
about the rights you will retain over work done in your employ, and you'll
have to make sure that these are clearly conditions of employment, and that
*nobody* is exempt.
If you don't already have such a system in place, implementing one can be
incredibly traumatic to your existing staff. You'll be trying to convince
them to sign over rights to things that are legitimately theirs, that you
*admit* are legitimately theirs, in exchange for privledges that they already
hold. Don't be suprised if you destroy your mud trying to accomplish this.
Visit us at Dreamshadow today! -
telnet: dreamer.telmaron.com 3333
http://homestead.dejanews.com/dreamshadow/DreamshadowMain.html
Scatter
(Aristotle) wrote:
>In article <TehmMB...@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz>, Richard <rm...@spudent.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>>from following it up wanting to read most of it first. I find it
>>laughable the idea that someone should expect to retain ownership of
>>something they contribute to the mud
>You laugh at the law? That sure is responsible.
I didn't see him say that anywhere in the post you answered. Perhaps
you misunderstood - what I interpreted the above to mean was that it
is laughable for someone to expect to retain copyright on code
contributed to the mud. This seemed to backed up by the bit later on,
that you haven't quoted, where he said he had had an agreement that
code contributed was owned by the mud.
I agree with this, and am intending to establish a clear understanding
on my own mud that when coders contribute any code or other game data
to my mud they also tranfer copyright ownership of that code to the
mud. I intend to make this policy clearly announced such that no one
can become a coder without seeing it, reading it, and taking some
action to indicate agreement with it - so no claims of ignorance will
carry any weight.
>> - the very idea that they can
>>withdraw permission to use it is something I consider stupid.
>Ah yes, it is "stupid" for authors, programmers, and other such people to
>actually care about their work and care about whether or not other people
>benefit from it without their permission and without compensation.
No, you seem to have misunderstood again. I think he saying that the
idea that someone can contribute something to a group work and then
expect to withdraw their contribution at some arbitrary later date is
stupid. Especially when that contribution is something that later work
relies upon, like mudlib code. It's similar to contributing some
concrete to the foundations of a tower, and then demanding your
concrete back once the tower is built - which I'd hope you agree is
fairly stupid.
Obviously the legal nature of the situation is different, concrete not
having copyright protection. :) Hence the necessity of an upfront
agreement that the coder must agree to BEFORE the code is given, so
that the coder has no legal method of withdrawing the code.
It isn't stupid for coders to care about their work and how it is
used, but neither is it stupid for admins to care about the mud as a
whole and take preventative steps to prevent 'damage' to it.
>Perhaps when all you do is use some online creation tool to right
>barely-better-than-stock crappy areas you don't care about your intellectual
>property rights.
Interesting statement, given that most of the posters in this thread
seem to focus on OLC'd areas and Richard is a respected LP coder.
>But when someone spends heaps of time working on something
>that is quality, you shouldn't be surprised that they actually feel like THEY
>are entitled to control/own THEIR work.
Exactly. It is not surprising that an admin who has spent heaps of
time building up and pulling together a quality mud should actually
feel that they are entitled to prevent coders changing their mind and
running off with foundation stones.
--
Scatter ///\oo/\\\
Aristotle
>It's similar to contributing some
>concrete to the foundations of a tower, and then demanding your
>concrete back once the tower is built - which I'd hope you agree is
>fairly stupid.
>Obviously the legal nature of the situation is different, concrete not
>having copyright protection. :)
Which is exactly why your example has absolutely *no* relevance or bearing on
the issue of copyright and intellectual property.
>Hence the necessity of an upfront
>agreement that the coder must agree to BEFORE the code is given, so
>that the coder has no legal method of withdrawing the code.
If there is an upfront, signed, written agreement made before the code is
contributed, then you are correct that there is no reason the coder should
expect to be able to withdraw his/her code. However, in the absence of such an
instrument (even if you have some silly "coder docs" on your mud that claim
such an agreement exists), that coder has every right to withdraw their code.
Intellectual property is still property. If I give you a note that says "If
you read this, you impliedly agree to give me your car, tv, and $10,000", that
is totally unenforceable. Similarly, a help file that says "you impliedly give
up your intellectual property rights" merely because the coder supposedly read
it, is silly and unenforceable.
>It isn't stupid for coders to care about their work and how it is
>used, but neither is it stupid for admins to care about the mud as a
>whole and take preventative steps to prevent 'damage' to it.
Then they should take them BEFOREHAND, and get it in writing.
>Exactly. It is not surprising that an admin who has spent heaps of
>time building up and pulling together a quality mud should actually
>feel that they are entitled to prevent coders changing their mind and
>running off with foundation stones.
Maybe they should have gotten a solid, written agreement with them upfront
and/or paid them for their work.
Scatter
(Aristotle) wrote:
>In article <370c6763...@news.uk.ibm.com>, sca...@thevortex.com (Scatter) wrote:
>>It's similar to contributing some
>>concrete to the foundations of a tower, and then demanding your
>>concrete back once the tower is built - which I'd hope you agree is
>>fairly stupid.
>>Obviously the legal nature of the situation is different, concrete not
>>having copyright protection. :)
>
>Which is exactly why your example has absolutely *no* relevance or bearing on
>the issue of copyright and intellectual property.
It wasn't intended to. It has relevance to the situation of a group
project which is dependent on many small parts which could be
contributed by many different people. The issue of copyright
protection is additional to the mud scenario, the point I was making
was that steps need to be taken to make the two situations effectively
same - i.e. have all contributers agree that they handover copyright
on anything contributed.
>>Hence the necessity of an upfront
>>agreement that the coder must agree to BEFORE the code is given, so
>>that the coder has no legal method of withdrawing the code.
>If there is an upfront, signed, written agreement made before the code is
>contributed, then you are correct that there is no reason the coder should
>expect to be able to withdraw his/her code.
If by 'signed, written' you mean hardcopy, on paper with a
hand-scrawled signature, then you are wrong - at least with respect to
UK law. In the UK, an online agreement where a set of terms and
conditions is presented and the user must click an 'I agree' button to
continue (as used in many ISP signups) has been established in court
to be just as binding as a signed, written agreement. All that is
needed is for it to be clearly demonstrated that there was no way the
user could have signed up without taking this explicit action to agree
with the terms and conditions. I would expect the same to be true in
the US, given the vast number of online companies that sign people up
this way.
>Intellectual property is still property. If I give you a note that says "If
>you read this, you impliedly agree to give me your car, tv, and $10,000", that
>is totally unenforceable. Similarly, a help file that says "you impliedly give
>up your intellectual property rights" merely because the coder supposedly read
>it, is silly and unenforceable.
I agree. However this is not what I intend. The terms and conditions
of being a coder on my mud will be presented as part of the process of
applying to become a coder. They will then be asked "Have you read all
the terms and conditions?" to which they must reply either 'no' (in
which case they will be presented again and the question repeated) or
'yes' in which case they will be asked "Do you accept and agree to the
terms and conditions for coding here?" to which they must answer
either 'no' in which case the application is aborted, or 'yes' in
which case the application is posted for my attention. The application
process will be logged for future reference.
So as opposed to your note example, in this case it will not be
possible for someone to become a coder on my mud without having stated
in no uncertain terms that they (a) have read and (b) accept and agree
to the terms and conditions. If they don't actually read them but
just say they have then that is their problem, not mine, and they have
no legal recourse.
>>It isn't stupid for coders to care about their work and how it is
>>used, but neither is it stupid for admins to care about the mud as a
>>whole and take preventative steps to prevent 'damage' to it.
>Then they should take them BEFOREHAND,
Which is what 'preventative' implies.
>and get it in writing.
Which is unnecessary.
--
Scatter ///\oo/\\\
NightShade
rric...@lanminds.com wrote in message
<37049a32...@nntp.lanminds.com>...
>On Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:43:57 +0200, "NightShade"
><mario.l...@getthetrapsentenceoutahere.span.ch> wrote:
>
>
>>Some elements need to be mentionned more specifically, though:
>>- MUD X has no mean of preventing the coder to reuse his work on other
>>worlds (and I don't refer to areas specifically). EG, if CoderA has
written
>>a set of handy routines on MUD X and starts working for MUD Y a couple of
>>months later, the methods he has hacked on MUD Y are still his own and he
>>may implement them on MUD Y.
>I believe that you meant "The methods he has hacked on Mud X"
Exactly :)
>>- If MUD X 1.0 gets replaced by MUD X 2.0, bearing another name or
>>implementing major changes in the game system (for instance, moving from a
>>pure H&S MUD to an RP MUD), MUD X 2.0 cannot reuse the coders work without
>>his consent. This may be harder to differenciate, but basically, if in the
>>previous example, the MUD remains the same, it may keep the files, whereas
>>in this example, the MUD is actually a new one.
>
>Umm.. could you explain more about this? Are you saying that if I am
>running a stock Circle mud, and decide after a year that I am going to
>enforce RP, and somehow actually succeed at that!, that my mud is
>suddenly NOT a stock Circle mud? I am trying to see how altering the
>playing environment has any bearing on the right to use code that is
>currently in the mud. Esp since, in my not too vast experience, the
>coders generally tend to say "We want to implement these features",
>but then leave what the actual playing environment is going to be like
>up to other imms. For example, they may decide clancode is good, and
>what it will do, but leave the reasoning for clans, and how they fit
>into the social environment, up to someone else. This generalization
>may apply less to builders.
I was thinking more about a situation where it is not basically the same MUD
that evolves through time, but _another_ mud. It's a bit hard to explain,
especially since I'm no native English speaker but I'll try anyway.
Let's say MUD X is an Envy-Mud themed around the Drow trilogies in Forgotten
Realms. Focus is roleplaying and Menzoberrazan, everything revolving around
the drow community (yeah, that would make a really daft MUD, but heh, I'm
trying to give an example).
The admins of MUD X decide to shut it down, and replace it with, say, a
Circle MUD, focussed on H&S and covering all of the Forgotten Realms series,
not only the drows. That kind of change would require my written consent to
have my areas ported, because it changes the focus too much and does not
necescarily correspond to my intent when I decided to start coding for MUD X
(original one), especially if the port requires modifications.
--
NightShade.
Richard Woolcock
>
[snip]
> I agree with this, and am intending to establish a clear understanding
> on my own mud that when coders contribute any code or other game data
> to my mud they also tranfer copyright ownership of that code to the
> mud.
Do you really mean they transfer copyright ownership, or do you really
mean that any code they write becomes joint copyright ownership? While
I agree that people shouldn't remove code they have submitted to their
mud, it's equally unfair to tell them they can't keep copies of anything
they wrote should they decide to leave the mud at a later point.
KaVir.
tig...@list.org
I may have missed this as there are some of the articles in this
thread that I have not been able to get before the expiration (whap
server). But with respect to copyrights and the author pulling their
code, I don't think the two mean the same thing at all.
If you buy a book from a bookstore, You do not have copyright
ownership of that book. Usually some publishing company does. That
publishing company cannot take the book back from you after they
bought it, right? Code I would think is very similar. The author
retains copyright of the code, but they can't take back their code
once it is 'in the game' so to speak, just as a publisher can't take a
book from your book collection. That's how I view it anyhow, and
that's how I was intending to write it up for my mud (no staff yet)
Tigran @ Illusions, Lima Bean, Gilded Promises and others.
Richard Woolcock
>
> Richard Woolcock <Ka...@nospam.dial.pipex.com> writes:
>
> > Scatter wrote:
> > >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I agree with this, and am intending to establish a clear understanding
> > > on my own mud that when coders contribute any code or other game data
> > > to my mud they also tranfer copyright ownership of that code to the
> > > mud.
> >
> > Do you really mean they transfer copyright ownership, or do you really
> > mean that any code they write becomes joint copyright ownership? While
> > I agree that people shouldn't remove code they have submitted to their
> > mud, it's equally unfair to tell them they can't keep copies of anything
> > they wrote should they decide to leave the mud at a later point.
>
> thread that I have not been able to get before the expiration (whap
> server). But with respect to copyrights and the author pulling their
> code, I don't think the two mean the same thing at all.
>
> If you buy a book from a bookstore, You do not have copyright
> ownership of that book. Usually some publishing company does. That
> publishing company cannot take the book back from you after they
> bought it, right? Code I would think is very similar. The author
> retains copyright of the code, but they can't take back their code
> once it is 'in the game' so to speak, just as a publisher can't take a
> book from your book collection.
An interesting view point, although of course people are rarely paid
for coding on a mud. Furthermore, even if the mud owner had implicit
rights to use the code within the mud, what would happen if s/he later
chose to distribute the mud source code? What if s/he created another
mud and wished to use some of the old code?
Regardless, what Scatter appeared to be saying was that anyone who codes
for his mud will have to transfer their copyrights, thus loosing the
rights to their own code. I do the same thing at work - but I get will
paid for it. In the mudding world, recognition is the only payment I
receive.
KaVir.
Jon A. Lambert
>
>Scatter wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>
>> I agree with this, and am intending to establish a clear understanding
>> on my own mud that when coders contribute any code or other game data
>> to my mud they also tranfer copyright ownership of that code to the
>> mud.
>
>Do you really mean they transfer copyright ownership, or do you really
>mean that any code they write becomes joint copyright ownership? While
>I agree that people shouldn't remove code they have submitted to their
>mud, it's equally unfair to tell them they can't keep copies of anything
>they wrote should they decide to leave the mud at a later point.
In the US, an exclusive license or assignment of copyright requires a
written agreement. Irregardless, the original copyright holder still
retains the right to terminate a license. That right cannot be negotiated
away, except as through assignment as a sale of property. Only then does
the original copyright holder lose all rights to the works.
The best method, domestically and internationally, for a mud implementor
to obtain exclusive copyright for an area (should that be the objective)
is through a work-for-hire agreement.
Richard
reading things into things. Or just reading what you want to see, perhaps.
Aristotle writes:
> Richard wrote:
>>Hell yes. I've been reading this thread and have had to restrain myself
>>from following it up wanting to read most of it first. I find it
>>laughable the idea that someone should expect to retain ownership of
>>something they contribute to the mud
>
> You laugh at the law? That sure is responsible.
No, you forget the whole point of the post you are responding to was to
state that, yes, my mud does have a copyright of the mentioned nature and
what I considered the justification behind it. That one sentence you
picked out was in that context - that if someone could spread their work
around it would degrade that work in terms of quality IMO and that if
someone could manipulate their work as an asset of theirs at a later date
THEN it would be laughable that they should expect to retain copyright
over something they _contributed_ to the mud. Note the use of the work
contribute, theres a big difference between that and saying that they are
letting the mud use it.
>> - the very idea that they can
>>withdraw permission to use it is something I consider stupid.
>
> Ah yes, it is "stupid" for authors, programmers, and other such people to
> actually care about their work and care about whether or not other people
> benefit from it without their permission and without compensation.
>
> Perhaps when all you do is use some online creation tool to right
> barely-better-than-stock crappy areas you don't care about your intellectual
> property rights. But when someone spends heaps of time working on something
> that is quality, you shouldn't be surprised that they actually feel like THEY
> are entitled to control/own THEIR work.
I'm really not sure what you're going on about here, but we're all
entitled to our little public rants.
I initially did a three page response to this and then I wondered why
bother posting it, you seemed to have missed the whole point of my post.
It was all in the context of muds and the work that creators contribute
to them, considering you're your own one-man-band and not a mud where
many contribute to a common goal, its not surprising that you would have
the view of the individual as a rule to go by when considering ownership
of work in a mud. But, there are muds out there with many as I said,
working towards a common goal, this means that if quality is desired, it
isn't practical to share areas around so that they become stock, it also
isn't practical and IMO makes no sense that work that should become
assets people can manipulate at a later date.
On request, I can attempt to justify why they shouldn't feel entitled to
own/control their work if you want.
Richard
> Aristotle wrote:
>> Scatter wrote:
>>>It's similar to contributing some
>>>concrete to the foundations of a tower, and then demanding your
>>>concrete back once the tower is built - which I'd hope you agree is
>>>fairly stupid.
>>>Obviously the legal nature of the situation is different, concrete not
>>>having copyright protection. :)
>>
>>Which is exactly why your example has absolutely *no* relevance or bearing on
>>the issue of copyright and intellectual property.
And what has this statement got to do with this thread - the topic was
that I had a copyright and the reasons why, you replied to specific bits,
scatter pointed out you were wrong and then you come along and seemingly
accuse him of deviating from a very general topic which has as much
bearing to my points as his to yours. I wish I had your gall, the only
thing I can do is laugh.
>>Intellectual property is still property. If I give you a note that says "If
>>you read this, you impliedly agree to give me your car, tv, and $10,000", that
>>is totally unenforceable. Similarly, a help file that says "you impliedly give
>>up your intellectual property rights" merely because the coder supposedly read
>>it, is silly and unenforceable.
I'm not sure what your example has to do with the price of fish..
Who does these things? We interviewed our potential creators and asked them
if they had read the copyright, and when they had, if they agreed we made
them creators. Sure its not perfect and in an ideal world there would be
handwritten agreements mailed around, but who gives a fuck.
Aristotle said in a previous post:
> property rights. But when someone spends heaps of time working on something
> that is quality, you shouldn't be surprised that they actually feel like
> THEY are entitled to control/own THEIR work.
I am not sure what you base this on, but we have had a lot of area creators
on our mud, a few good and a lot mediocre or downright bad (I categorise
myself in the last bit). I found that the good creators were really only
concerned with getting in there and expressing their creativity, they
were investing in the future of the mud and tended to agree with me
wholeheartedly on the issues the copyright was based on. They created
quality work and it made sense to them that if the mud was to be quality
it made sense to go along with the two points that meant it made sense
for the mud to own the code. Really, if someone is there to create an
asset they can control at a later date, they're wasting out time.
So as I said who gives a fuck if some of the mediocre/bad creators come
back and say remove this. With a bit of luck, the good ones that tend
to stick around will have rewritten that crud anyway.
And they shouldn't be surprised when we tell them to bugger off. After
all they agreed to the copyright, if they sue good on them - good luck
sueing me in New Zealand and then somehow affecting the mud in Iceland
will be interesting to watch, I'd actually be interested in seeing how
that would work.
Anyway, if it turns out that the code still belongs to them regardless of
our copyright then maybe we'll remove/give it back when they pay rental -
for making it public on the mud and for diskspace storage.
tig...@mta3.dmmta.com
> tig...@list.org wrote:
> >
> > Richard Woolcock <Ka...@nospam.dial.pipex.com> writes:
> >
> > > Scatter wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > I agree with this, and am intending to establish a clear understanding
> > > > on my own mud that when coders contribute any code or other game data
> > > > to my mud they also tranfer copyright ownership of that code to the
> > > > mud.
> > >
> > > Do you really mean they transfer copyright ownership, or do you really
> > > mean that any code they write becomes joint copyright ownership? While
> > > I agree that people shouldn't remove code they have submitted to their
> > > mud, it's equally unfair to tell them they can't keep copies of anything
> > > they wrote should they decide to leave the mud at a later point.
> >
> > I may have missed this as there are some of the articles in this
> > thread that I have not been able to get before the expiration (whap
> > server). But with respect to copyrights and the author pulling their
> > code, I don't think the two mean the same thing at all.
> >
> > If you buy a book from a bookstore, You do not have copyright
> > ownership of that book. Usually some publishing company does. That
> > publishing company cannot take the book back from you after they
> > bought it, right? Code I would think is very similar. The author
> > retains copyright of the code, but they can't take back their code
> > once it is 'in the game' so to speak, just as a publisher can't take a
> > book from your book collection.
>
> An interesting view point, although of course people are rarely paid
> for coding on a mud. Furthermore, even if the mud owner had implicit
> rights to use the code within the mud, what would happen if s/he later
> chose to distribute the mud source code? What if s/he created another
> mud and wished to use some of the old code?
Hee hee...There is a reason that I didn't go into distribution in my
original post. But I would have to say at this point, that they would
have to ask the author for permission, for distribution, or at the
very least site it as a reference as you would in any other
publication.
>
> Regardless, what Scatter appeared to be saying was that anyone who codes
> for his mud will have to transfer their copyrights, thus loosing the
> rights to their own code. I do the same thing at work - but I get will
> paid for it. In the mudding world, recognition is the only payment I
> receive.
>
> KaVir.
I really don't think transfer of funds from one person to another
matters when it is an issue of copyright. It's more the paper signed
for a transfer of copyright. I'm by no means a lawyer, so these are
just how I've interpreted things.
Tigran @Illusions, Lima Bean and others.
Scatter
from dejanews to reply]
Richard Woolcock <Ka...@nospam.dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Scatter wrote:
>> I agree with this, and am intending to establish a clear understanding
>> on my own mud that when coders contribute any code or other game data
>> to my mud they also tranfer copyright ownership of that code to the
>> mud.
>
>Do you really mean they transfer copyright ownership, or do you really
>mean that any code they write becomes joint copyright ownership? While
>I agree that people shouldn't remove code they have submitted to their
>mud, it's equally unfair to tell them they can't keep copies of anything
>they wrote should they decide to leave the mud at a later point.
I really mean they transfer copyright ownership - i.e. once they have
contributed code (be it mudlib, area, or anything else) the copyright
is owned by the mud and they no longer have the right to distribute it
to other muds.
One of my goals is that my mud provides a unique world with unique
features. Therefore the last thing I want to happen is coders
departing and passing on things they wrote for us to other muds.
This doesn't really affect them keeping copies of things they write
(especially since much LP coding is done offline) - copyright is much
more about distribution - the right to copy.
There will be conditions in the agreement handing over copyright, to
establish what we will and won't use the code for - i.e. it would only
be used for our mud, where no profit is made from it, and so on. If we
were to break those conditions then copyright would revert to the
coders themselves - similarly if the mud were to permanently shut
down.
Primarily I want to:
- prevent disgruntled contributers decideding to get revenge by
suddenly deciding we can no longer use their code,
- prevent coders destroying the uniqueness of our game by giving
features/areas to other muds,
- prevent coders using our resources to aid competing muds
The copyright transfer agreement for our coders may seem a little
unfair, but it is a voluntary action to decide to be a code for us. If
people genuinely want to help and support the mud then I don't think
they will have any big problem with an agreement mainly intended to
prevent harm to the mud and prevent code-leak to competing muds. We
don't want the kind of coder who seeks fame and glory by contributing
the same code and areas to every other mud they manage to get promoted
on.
--
Scatter ///\oo/\\\
Scatter
> If you buy a book from a bookstore, You do not have copyright
> ownership of that book. Usually some publishing company does. That
> publishing company cannot take the book back from you after they
> bought it, right? Code I would think is very similar. The author
> retains copyright of the code, but they can't take back their code
> once it is 'in the game' so to speak, just as a publisher can't take a
> book from your book collection.
Yes, the main purpose of copyright is to protect the right to
distribute something rather than the right to use it once distributed
(which is normally covered by licensing). However, consider that
things like area descriptions, messages and so forth are distributed
to each player that wanders through the area and looks at things.
Unfortunately for mud admin, using an area involves distributing it -
hence if the area author retains copyright they can legally insist the
mud stops distributing in whole or in part - thus effectively
preventing the mud using it at all.
--
Scatter ///\oo/\\\
Greg Miller
>
> Glyciren wrote
> >> They do have the right to use the area, as long as they wish, but they
> can not give out
> >> copies without the author's permission.
>
> their code stays as "part of the mud" even if they leave ..sort of a
> contract -type of thing?
Generally, it's not necessary. Even without it, they're giving implicit
permission to use it indefinately.
>
> Would this in fact mean that they foregoe their intellectual copyright
> claims to such code?
Only if they agreement requires them to turn over copyright to the mud
ownership. Otherwise, the builder still has sole copyright to the area.
>
> If that is so, then the mud could give out copies as it pleased them, or use
> it in what ever mannor they saw fit. After all, most Admins pay money to own
> the site a mud is run on. As such, he theoretically owns the stuff on his
> machine (doesn't he?) ..he can shut out players, refuse entry, etc
No, he doesn't. For example, you don't own MS Office if you install it
on your machine.
--
http://www.classic-games.com/
President Clinton was acquitted; then again, so was O. J. Simpson.
*** NEWBIES: Limit signatures to four lines! No HTML mail or posts! ***
rric...@lanminds.com
wrote:
>The copyright transfer agreement for our coders may seem a little
>unfair, but it is a voluntary action to decide to be a code for us. If
>people genuinely want to help and support the mud then I don't think
>they will have any big problem with an agreement mainly intended to
>prevent harm to the mud and prevent code-leak to competing muds. We
>don't want the kind of coder who seeks fame and glory by contributing
>the same code and areas to every other mud they manage to get promoted
>on.
Interesting idea, but how will you enforce it? If an area you use
shows up on another mud, will you sue the mud or your builder? What
are the damages that you will be looking at recovering from the
builder? Do you have the right to ask another mud to not use code
that was freely given to it by the person that made the code? And
what do you do if one of your coders had worked somewhere else
first... do you NOT use any code that they first tried out somewhere
else? I find it hard to believe that if one of your coders says "Hey,
I coded this neat way of handling situation X on mud Y" you expect
them to come up with a completely new and original way of doing it.
Kira Skydancer
Remove "not" when replying by email
mwi...@my-dejanews.com
thre...@threshold-rpg.com (Aristotle) wrote:
> Intellectual property is still property. If I give you a note that says "If
> you read this, you impliedly agree to give me your car, tv, and $10,000", that
> is totally unenforceable. Similarly, a help file that says "you impliedly give
> up your intellectual property rights" merely because the coder supposedly read
> it, is silly and unenforceable.
Which is exactly why such a thing needs to be specifically presented and
explained to a potential staff member *before* they become part of your mud,
and why the wording above is insufficient. Something more along the lines
of:
"By the act of accepting a staff position at [you mud's name], I agree that
the management of this mud has established an employer-employee relationship
with me. I agree to abide by the terms of employment as established by the
management, and I agree that all works resulting from the performance of my
duties here will be considered "work for hire", and that the management of
[your mud] will retain all rights to said works."
I honestly can't say whether such an agreement *has* to be signed,
witnessed or notarized. If any mud ever gets sued over the matter, I guess
we'll find out. As long as we're dealing only with free muds however, the
chances of a lawsuit ever happening is slim. There's simply not enough value
involved to justify the costs.
Scatter
>On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:28:03 GMT, sca...@thevortex.com (Scatter)
>wrote:
>
>>The copyright transfer agreement for our coders may seem a little
>>unfair, but it is a voluntary action to decide to be a code for us. If
>>people genuinely want to help and support the mud then I don't think
>>they will have any big problem with an agreement mainly intended to
>>prevent harm to the mud and prevent code-leak to competing muds. We
>>don't want the kind of coder who seeks fame and glory by contributing
>>the same code and areas to every other mud they manage to get promoted
>>on.
>
>Interesting idea, but how will you enforce it? If an area you use
>shows up on another mud, will you sue the mud or your builder? What
>are the damages that you will be looking at recovering from the
>builder? Do you have the right to ask another mud to not use code
>that was freely given to it by the person that made the code?
I would hope that I wouldn't need to enforce it - that the existence
of the agreement would be enough to discourage the sort of person
likely to break it from becoming a creator in the first place.
However, in the event that I discovered code or areas from my mud had
been leaked to another, there are several steps I could take.
The first would be to remind the person concerned of the agreement
they made and ask them to remove the code/area from the other mud.
If this failed, the next step would be to delete & ban the person
concerned and contact the admin of the other mud and explain the
situation. I would hope a reasonable admin would understand the
situation and remove the code from their mud. If the admin proved to
be unreasonable, the next step would be to contact the ISP/site
hosting the mud, explain the situation and ask that they insist the
mud removes the code in question.
If the ISP/hosting site also proved unreasonable, I start to run out
of options. Obviously there is no question of suing for "damages"
considering the mud is free. If the code/area was large enough to make
it worthwhile, I might have a lawyer send a "cease & desist using it"
letter, in the hope that fear would do the rest. Due to the costs
involved it would be very unlikely that I would take it further than
that. If the other mud was also UK based I would be able to sue to get
them to stop using it, but it would have to be a fairly hefty chunk of
stuff to make it worth the hassle!
>And what do you do if one of your coders had worked somewhere else
>first... do you NOT use any code that they first tried out somewhere
>else? I find it hard to believe that if one of your coders says "Hey,
>I coded this neat way of handling situation X on mud Y" you expect
>them to come up with a completely new and original way of doing it.
Nothing stops them re-implementing a method or algorithm used before,
as long as they don't simply drop in large chunks of code that are in
use on another mud. In fact it is likely that if they have to
re-implement, they will do a better job of it, having learned from the
first time they did it.
--
Scatter ///\oo/\\\
Elwe
When someone becomes a wizard where I admin, they agree that anything
they code for the game will not be removed by them, once it's been
introduced into the playing environment. I couldn't care less, whether
said "copy" of the code was "found" on another mud or if it ended up
on the 666th layer of Hell. If anything coded for the game did in fact
end up on another mud, I'd feel honored that said wizard thought enough
of his/her code to distribute it.
I believe that when something is coded in the game, it becomes the
property of said game. If a wizard want's a copy of said code, that is
their right to have access to it. Other than that, they have the right
to "modify" the code, within the bounds of the approval system. But not
remove said code. Since backups are taken every day, if a wizard
descided to "destroy" his/her code, we'd always have a copy and would
put it back into play shortly after the destruction was noted.
Of course, said wizard would be instantly de-wizzed, after they did
their "parting piece". But that's thier option.
Elwe of The Enchanted Rock
** Re-Lurk **
--
DICTATOR desires employment, perferably permanent, in similar capacity.
Will accept opportunity to establish own circumstances. Six years
experience. Last position terminated at request of populace.
Blind Box 5 Amber News Services.
CONGRESS.SYS Corrupted: Re-Boot WASHINGTON D.C. (Y/n) ?
John Adelsberger
: ** Un-Lurk **
[snip]
: ** Re-Lurk **
You sir, are now on the official list of the lamest human beings who have
ever lived. You, like many others, suffer from the delusion that Usenet
is a Star Trek convention... but there IS help available. Smack your
head into a wall repeatedly until you feel better. If this causes pain,
you aren't healed yet.
--
John J. Adelsberger III
j...@umr.edu
"Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
- Ayn Rand
Scott Goehring
Elwe> I believe that when something is coded in the game, it becomes
Elwe> the property of said game.
Not unless the game paid them to code it into the game, or the author
explicitly transferred the intellectual property rights to the game
(which, in the United States, requires a signed, written instrument).
Elwe> Since backups are taken every day, if a wizard descided to
Elwe> "destroy" his/her code, we'd always have a copy and would put it
Elwe> back into play shortly after the destruction was noted.
This practice would make you liable for copyright infringement. It
could be argued that, by removing his intellectual property from the
game, the author has indicated that he has revoked your license to use
it. Licenses are revocable at any time (unless supported by
consideration), amd you would at least be on inquiry notice of the
revocation, so you'd be at least foolhardy to do what you set forth
above.
--
"These are children, not cans of soup. ... If you want to label
something, work in a cannery." -- Mark Probert
Sterling
>"Elwe" == Elwe <Elwe> writes:
>
>Elwe> Since backups are taken every day, if a wizard descided to
>Elwe> "destroy" his/her code, we'd always have a copy and would put it
>Elwe> back into play shortly after the destruction was noted.
>
>This practice would make you liable for copyright infringement. It
>could be argued that, by removing his intellectual property from the
>game, the author has indicated that he has revoked your license to use
>it.
Translation: "Anne Rice decided she didn't want page 215 and page 97 in her
latest book and came and ripped those pages out of your book."
Intellectual property/copyrights are not as "concrete" as physical property,
something to keep in mind. They still have weight, but their intangibility
makes them, for one, much harder to defend in court. As well, the person
claiming "intellectual property" on a portion of code would have no right
under the law to damage another person's "intellectual property" to preserve
their own.
Sterling @ Wyld Knight
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Wyld Knight - wyld.qx.net 3333
http://wyld.qx.net/~rezo
re...@lords.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Scott Goehring
Sterling> Translation: "Anne Rice decided she didn't want page 215 and
Sterling> page 97 in her latest book and came and ripped those pages
Sterling> out of your book."
Not apposite. You're confusing the right to control the use of IP
with the right to possess tangible property without interference. If
you purchased a copy of Anne Rice's book, you acquired title to the
printed copy of the book, which is to say the admixture of paper, glue
and ink that makes up the physical book. Anne Rice has no right to
interfere in your property interest in that physical book. You did
NOT acquire any of the rights to the intellectal property which the
law reserves in the author. (The law reserves no right in the author
to prohibit someone from privately viewing their work, so you don't
need a license to read the book to yourself.)
On the other hand, when you, as an programmer, offer code to a MUD,
you are granting them not only a tangible representation of that code
(physical property), but also a license to use that code. Execution
of program instructions is use of the work and the right to use is a
copyright right which inheres in the author. If the author were to
later destroy the copy he offered to the MUD administrator, the
administrator may be entitled to retain backups, but is at least on
inquiry notice that the author has revoked the license to either copy
or use that code. If this is in fact the case, the MUD administrator
can neither copy the code off of the backup, nor use the code in any
way.
Sterling> Intellectual property/copyrights are not as "concrete" as
Sterling> physical property, something to keep in mind. They still
Sterling> have weight, but their intangibility makes them, for one,
Sterling> much harder to defend in court.
Poppycock. The law of intellectual property rights is quite well
established, and lawyers have no trouble at all defending them in
court. If anything, IP rights are clearer than rights in real or
personal property; you don't have to worry about things like clear
title, adverse possession, easement by prescription, nuisance,
covenants, and all the other archaic doctrines that make tangible
property law funky.
--
"The Government has no aesthetic or property interest in protecting a mere
aggregation of stripes and stars for its own sake."
-- Kime v. United States, 459 U.S. 949, 953 (1982) (J. Brennan,
dissenting from denial of writ of certiorari).
Sterling
Poppycock. The law of intellectual property rights is still being written
day-by-day, whereas tangible property, while governed by numerous, often
archaic laws, is still considerably easier to defend. Your statement that
"lawyers have no trouble at all defending [intellectual property]" shows an
obvious isolation from the numerous articles that have appeared in the Wall
Street Journal, NY Times, etc. describing the intense, messy, and difficult
cases that intellectual property rights disputes entail.
Jon A. Lambert
>
> If the author were to
>later destroy the copy he offered to the MUD administrator, the
>administrator may be entitled to retain backups, but is at least on
>inquiry notice that the author has revoked the license to either copy
>or use that code. If this is in fact the case, the MUD administrator
>can neither copy the code off of the backup, nor use the code in any
>way.
Bullhockey. The author who does that may well have committed a
criminal act (EVEN IF they have authorized access to the server).
Destroying a copy of code that someone else OWNS is not an "inquiry notice"
of license termination. Also, assuming their is no explicit license
agreement, the owner of the copy has every right to continue to use the
code for the use it was intended because they have an implied license
agreement with the code author. This is even on more solid legal ground
if the code was created by the author by an explicit request of the mud
owner.
Sterling's analogy is quite correct.
Scott Goehring
Jon> Bullhockey. The author who does that may well have committed a
Jon> criminal act (EVEN IF they have authorized access to the server).
That is possibly true, but not related to the IP issue at all. I
think the mud administrator is on at least some sort of notice that
the author intends to revoke his license. Whether that notice is
effective is debatable, but if the author is persistent enough,
putting the code back up will just result in a cease and desist order,
at which point continuing to use the code will be an clearly
actionable infringment for which the mud owner has no defense at all.
Jon> This is even on more solid legal ground if the code was created
Jon> by the author by an explicit request of the mud owner.
Only if that request was backed by consideration.
--
"[The government] has no ... authority to license one side of a debate to
fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry
rules." -- R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377, 392 (1992).
Scott Goehring
Sterling> Poppycock. The law of intellectual property rights is still
Sterling> being written day-by-day, whereas tangible property, while
Sterling> governed by numerous, often archaic laws, is still
Sterling> considerably easier to defend.
While certain areas of IP law are in fact being written day to day
(most notably, those areas that relate to the Internet), the basic
doctrines are quite solidly established and have not changed
substantially since 1976.
Real property law changes all the time, too. In recent years we've
seen a new estate in land get created (timeshare interests in fee
simple are treated by some courts as a new type of estate in land,
rather than a covenanted cotenancy), we've seen landlord-tenant law
get turned completely around, and we've seen all sorts of complicated
and unclear issues arise with condominiums and condo associations.
Real property law is nowhere near as clear as you might think, in
large part because it's governed by archaic laws that have no
meaningful application in today's society. Remember, a lot of these
rules date back, without substantial change to feudalism.
Sterling> Your statement that "lawyers have no trouble at all
Sterling> defending [intellectual property]" shows an obvious
Sterling> isolation from the numerous articles that have appeared in
Sterling> the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, etc. describing the
Sterling> intense, messy, and difficult cases that intellectual
Sterling> property rights disputes entail.
All areas of law have lacunae which lead to intense, messy, and
difficult cases. I don't think that the issue being discussed falls
into one of those lacunae.
--
"This E-mail will only receive once it, forgive the nuisances, thank you."
-- name deleted to protect the guilty
Sterling
>"Sterling" == Sterling <re...@darkstar.qx.net> writes:
>
>Sterling> Poppycock. The law of intellectual property rights is still
>Sterling> being written day-by-day, whereas tangible property, while
>Sterling> governed by numerous, often archaic laws, is still
>Sterling> considerably easier to defend.
>
>While certain areas of IP law are in fact being written day to day
>(most notably, those areas that relate to the Internet), the basic
>doctrines are quite solidly established and have not changed
>substantially since 1976.
Established, and not changed since 1976.
>
>Real property law changes all the time, too. Remember, a lot of these
>rules date back, without substantial change to feudalism.
>
Established, and not changed since 1276? Who's point were you proving?
The Jester
a snippet from my news files. By coding or building <or for that matter
playing> on MY site, they agreed to all policies :).
Contributions to the MUX:
Any coding, building, or creative work that goes into this MUX is the
sole and collective property of the game, and this includes Staff work. If
you wish to look at Code done by a coder, please speak to that
coder/builder, or to the gods, and they can put you in touch with the person
you need to speak with. Once any building/coding is placed into play on
this game, the author forfeits all rights or claim to remove it from the
game, though the code authorship still lies with them and they will be
credited.
Asherah@ShroudedRitesMUX
Sterling <re...@darkstar.qx.net> wrote in message
news:slrn7ir8d...@darkstar.qx.net...
> On 02 May 1999, Scott Goehring <sc...@poverty.bloomington.in.us> wrote:
> >"Elwe" == Elwe <Elwe> writes:
> >
> >Elwe> Since backups are taken every day, if a wizard descided to
> >Elwe> "destroy" his/her code, we'd always have a copy and would put it
> >Elwe> back into play shortly after the destruction was noted.
> >
> >This practice would make you liable for copyright infringement. It
> >could be argued that, by removing his intellectual property from the
> >game, the author has indicated that he has revoked your license to use
> >it.
>
> Translation: "Anne Rice decided she didn't want page 215 and page 97 in
her
> latest book and came and ripped those pages out of your book."
>
> Intellectual property/copyrights are not as "concrete" as physical
property,
> something to keep in mind. They still have weight, but their
intangibility
> makes them, for one, much harder to defend in court. As well, the person
> claiming "intellectual property" on a portion of code would have no right
> under the law to damage another person's "intellectual property" to
preserve
> their own.
>
Scott Goehring
The> Contributions to the MUX: Any coding, building, or creative work
The> that goes into this MUX is the sole and collective property of
The> the game, and this includes Staff work. If you wish to look at
The> Code done by a coder, please speak to that coder/builder, or to
The> the gods, and they can put you in touch with the person you need
The> to speak with. Once any building/coding is placed into play on
The> this game, the author forfeits all rights or claim to remove it
The> from the game, though the code authorship still lies with them
The> and they will be credited.
Copyright transfers must be evidenced by a signed writing. Do you
make your programmers and builders send you a signed acknowledgement
of these policies?
Since you (presumably) don't get a copyright transfer, what you're
acquiring from your coders and builders are licenses. You're asking
coders and programmers to promise not to revoke their licenses; what
are you promising to do for them in return? Without your reciprocal
promise, you don't have a contract, and without a contract, the
license is revocable.
It's conceivably possible that you do have a contract, depending on
circumstances I don't have knowledge of at this time. You clearly do
NOT acquire an intellectual property interest in the code written by
your coders and builders, absent either a signed copyright transfer or
an actual master-servant relationship (which I truly doubt is absent).
H. McDaniel
>On 02 May 1999, Scott Goehring <sc...@poverty.bloomington.in.us> wrote:
>>"Elwe" == Elwe <Elwe> writes:
>>
>>Elwe> Since backups are taken every day, if a wizard descided to
>>Elwe> "destroy" his/her code, we'd always have a copy and would put it
>>Elwe> back into play shortly after the destruction was noted.
>>
>>This practice would make you liable for copyright infringement. It
>>could be argued that, by removing his intellectual property from the
>>game, the author has indicated that he has revoked your license to use
>>it.
>Translation: "Anne Rice decided she didn't want page 215 and page 97 in her
>latest book and came and ripped those pages out of your book."
Anne Rice signed a contract and got paid to give up the right to do that.
-McDaniel
Brent A Ellingson
: re...@darkstar.qx.net (Sterling) writes:
: >Translation: "Anne Rice decided she didn't want page 215 and page 97 in her
: >latest book and came and ripped those pages out of your book."
: Anne Rice signed a contract and got paid to give up the right to do that.
I am not a copyright lawyer (or a lawyer of any kind), but I think
you're missing something.
Even if Anne Rice personally gave me a copy of an unpublished novel,
I doubt she could come back and start to rip pages out of it. If I
own the copy, she can't just destroy it.
Also realize that I can NOT legally make copies of Anne's book just
because she gave me a copy (or even the original). Further, she can
probably give me the limited right to copy and legally distrubute her
book, without giving up the right to take away my ability to legally
copy and distribute page 215 and 97.
In other words, she could probably say to me one day, "Brent, go ahead
and make copies of my book," without giving up the right to come back
a few days later and say "you can't copy pages 215 and 97 anymore."
But she probably can't remove those pages from the copies once I've
distributed them, nor can she remove those pages from my copy.
The contract with the publisher was to make it very explicit what
rights both she and the publisher have in regard to copying and
distributing the book, and how long those rights last. This is both
for the publisher's protection *and* hers.
Remember, nine-nine percent of the reason for any contract is to make
sure everyone involved agrees to their rights. In light of this, I
think everyone involved (the coder and the mud runner) should be clear
with each other exactly what their respective rights are, and those
rights should be in writing somewhere, and there should be some method
to ensure those rights are read. Without this, you should understand
that your rights are basically whatever the other guy can get away with,
and, frankly, no lawyer on earth will be willing to help you afterwords
unless you have a ton of cash.
--
Brent Ellingson (bell...@badlands.NoDak.edu)
"It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness."
-- Leo Tolstoy
H. McDaniel
>H. McDaniel (ha...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>: re...@darkstar.qx.net (Sterling) writes:
>: >Translation: "Anne Rice decided she didn't want page 215 and page 97 in her
>: >latest book and came and ripped those pages out of your book."
>: Anne Rice signed a contract and got paid to give up the right to do that.
>I am not a copyright lawyer (or a lawyer of any kind), but I think
>you're missing something.
>Even if Anne Rice personally gave me a copy of an unpublished novel,
>I doubt she could come back and start to rip pages out of it. If I
>own the copy, she can't just destroy it.
The book in the discussion above was published, not unpublished. Rice
has no right to take something you own. And let's say Rice gave
you a copy of her unpublished manuscript, there would be the understanding
that you're not going to publish it against her will, so she wouldn't
be concerned about whether page 200 (or what have you) is there or not.
>In other words, she could probably say to me one day, "Brent, go ahead
>and make copies of my book," without giving up the right to come back
>a few days later and say "you can't copy pages 215 and 97 anymore."
>But she probably can't remove those pages from the copies once I've
>distributed them, nor can she remove those pages from my copy.
As far as MUDs go, you have the ongoing publication of material. A
MUD admin cannot claim that altering the material is outside of his
control anymore than a magazine publisher could keep publishing
the same article every week and claim that he can't alter or remove
that article from the pages of his publication.
>The contract with the publisher was to make it very explicit what
>rights both she and the publisher have in regard to copying and
>distributing the book, and how long those rights last. This is both
>for the publisher's protection *and* hers.
Duh. If you do not explicitly secure the rights to Rice's book then
you do not have unlimited rights. For instance if you run a magazine
and Rice gives you a copy of her book to publish in that magazine,
she *can* come along anytime later and say, "you can't publish that
anymore" or "take out pages 200 and 250" in any future publication. It's
your tough luck that you didn't secure better terms.
-McDaniel
red...@my-dejanews.com
not much the wiser. But I am slightly wiser. And its not a pretty
picture really - I'm hoping this does go to the courts in my own way,
I'd like for it to be settled.
First I looked over UK copyright law. What you need to do is decide
whether a MUD is a computer game or not. I have assumed it is.
In the UK it is the person who made the arrangements necessary for the
computer game to be produced who is copyright holder. So if your MUD
is hosted on a UK server it seems that the person who arranged for it
to be hosted on the server is the copyright holder of work produced.
Worse yet, if your God is under contract from a company it is your
God's company that own the copyright.
There are sections about writing under a pseudonym, which most of us do
when we code, sections about joint authorship which seem not to apply
to computer games, sections about acknowledgement of your work - that
explicitly does not apply in computer games.
Now there's an international body with member states governing
copyright laws as well, but no such thing as international copyright.
So I went and read a bit about US copyright laws.
In the US they require the source code for a computer game to be
submitted with the application for copyright. Object code can only be
partially protected. Now we all know that the source code isn't ours,
and unless we decide that the lib is the source code... that means that
our code cannot be fully protected and that even if we do try for
copyright Joern Rennecke is entitled to joint authorship. I think!
Well it got even more confusing when I started to read that if you have
used a large amount of modules of code available in the public domain
to produce the final product it should be noted.... public domain,
great words... confusing, grey, and undecided.
Copyright exists from the moment a work is produced!
Indeed.
But only if the work that is produced is afforded to copyright
protection... and stand alone modules (such as areas) do not seem to
be covered in that.
If anyone thinks this post is so relevant it should start a separate
thread let me know. I actually have the section numbers relevent to
MUDS (if taken as computer games) in the UK Copyright, Designs and
Patents act of 1988 somewhere to hand if anyone is interested.
I've taken the only relevent steps to protect my MUD as outlined in the
Act - despite the fact only about 2% of the code is mine and a lot of
it is (will be) being used without consent as the people who originally
produced it are for all intents and purposes not contactable. And as
it stands I may even be able to claim I own copyright on their code
despite the fact it was never intended for my MUD as it forms part of
the whole game. That's nasty as hell, common practise in big industry
to use standard modules to achieve a final product, but still leaves a
bad taste even in my mouth.
I will be looking into this much, MUCH further and I'll keep ya posted.
But please remember I can't send email from jail and I won't be able to
afford a computer once the damages claims start being files, so if I
disappear suddenly blame it on the legal systems of the world.
strangely sober,
Redsexy
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Sterling
>After painstaking hours of talks and reading and re-reading I'm still
>not much the wiser. But I am slightly wiser. And its not a pretty
>picture really - I'm hoping this does go to the courts in my own way,
>I'd like for it to be settled.
Not being "up" on the situation you are referring to, I can only ask that if
it does actually go to court please make a post saying so, as it would be
(as far as I know) the first mud-related case to actually go to court.
>First I looked over UK copyright law. What you need to do is decide
>whether a MUD is a computer game or not. I have assumed it is.
I am pretty sure, assuming UK law approximates US law as it often does (or
probably the reverse actually), that muds can be classified as computer
games, but creative lawyers could also classify them as literature, i.e., an
electronic book, as well as other things (never underestimate a creative
lawyer, OJ got off).
>
>In the UK it is the person who made the arrangements necessary for the
>computer game to be produced who is copyright holder. So if your MUD
>is hosted on a UK server it seems that the person who arranged for it
>to be hosted on the server is the copyright holder of work produced.
>Worse yet, if your God is under contract from a company it is your
>God's company that own the copyright.
Yes, and no. :) Again, not knowing the actual UK laws I am speaking from a
US frame of reference, but copyrighted work can be a part of another
copyrighted work, and so on. There can be copyrights within other
copyrights. Also, as far as your boss owning the copyright, it is quite
likely that if your boss is in the computer gaming field that they might
have some claim to your work, especially if their is a contractual
obligation, but if your boss at the neighborhood burger joint tried to go to
court with a claim on your mud I doubt it would get very far (however, never
underestimate a creative lawyer :) The simple fact of the matter is that
anyone that is willing to put up the cash can make anyone else's life a
sheer living hell by tying them up in court on constant frivolous suits, all
it requires is money and the urge.
>There are sections about writing under a pseudonym, which most of us do
>when we code, sections about joint authorship which seem not to apply
>to computer games, sections about acknowledgement of your work - that
>explicitly does not apply in computer games.
Again, a mud can be classified as a computer game, but could easily be
classified as something else, so specific questions about the laws you are
looking at would have to be answered by a lawyer familiar with those laws.
(UK, solicitor right? Barristers are the litigators and solicitors are the
researchers?)
>Now there's an international body with member states governing
>copyright laws as well, but no such thing as international copyright.
>So I went and read a bit about US copyright laws.
>
>In the US they require the source code for a computer game to be
>submitted with the application for copyright. Object code can only be
>partially protected. Now we all know that the source code isn't ours,
>and unless we decide that the lib is the source code... that means that
>our code cannot be fully protected and that even if we do try for
>copyright Joern Rennecke is entitled to joint authorship. I think!
Anything you personally write is copyrightable (this sentence copyright
1999, myself). Enforceability is an entirely different subject. If you
reprint that sentence above without my permission I will do absolutely
nothing about it. While I *might* be able to get a court order preventing
you from using that sentence, it would cost me time and money, the 2 things
most overlooked in considering the option of a lawsuit.
As for submission, it is quite wise if it is something you truly want to
protect. Court cases are won and lost on paper trails and technicalities.
It is rare that the merits actually have much effect on the outcome.
>Well it got even more confusing when I started to read that if you have
>used a large amount of modules of code available in the public domain
>to produce the final product it should be noted.... public domain,
>great words... confusing, grey, and undecided.
"confusing, grey, and undecided" describes many aspects of the law :)
>Copyright exists from the moment a work is produced!
>
>Indeed.
>
>But only if the work that is produced is afforded to copyright
>protection... and stand alone modules (such as areas) do not seem to
>be covered in that.
See above copyrighted sentence. Anything you write is copyrightable.
Granted, most stuff is not worth doing so. Areas on a mud would definitely
be copyrightable, even as part of a larger copyrighted work.
>If anyone thinks this post is so relevant it should start a separate
>thread let me know. I actually have the section numbers relevent to
>MUDS (if taken as computer games) in the UK Copyright, Designs and
>Patents act of 1988 somewhere to hand if anyone is interested.
For US copyright laws, refer to http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/
It has some very useful information.
>I've taken the only relevent steps to protect my MUD as outlined in the
>Act - despite the fact only about 2% of the code is mine and a lot of
>it is (will be) being used without consent as the people who originally
>produced it are for all intents and purposes not contactable. And as
>it stands I may even be able to claim I own copyright on their code
>despite the fact it was never intended for my MUD as it forms part of
>the whole game. That's nasty as hell, common practise in big industry
>to use standard modules to achieve a final product, but still leaves a
>bad taste even in my mouth.
Yes, your mud, even with 98% copyrighted by someone else, can be copyrighted
as a complete work. This means little to nothing (as do all copyrights)
without enforcement. The author of the included work still owns his
copyright as well, so your copyright ownership does not preclude his rights.
>I will be looking into this much, MUCH further and I'll keep ya posted.
>But please remember I can't send email from jail and I won't be able to
>afford a computer once the damages claims start being files, so if I
>disappear suddenly blame it on the legal systems of the world.
Again, without full information on the situation and an utter lack of
familiarity with UK law... Ask the local bar association (I am sure there
is a UK equivalent) for referrals to lawyers that may work 'pro bono'
(free). Also you might check with the UK equivalent of the ACLU (American
Civil Liberties Union, an organization that tries to prevent the
little-man's rights from getting trampled, but often just advocates one
political position or another). If you have a good enough case where you
are obviously being wronged organizations like this will often pick up the
legal tab, as well as pointing you in the right direction (you have to have
a *very* good case for them to consider doing this though).
Scott Goehring
Sterling> I am pretty sure, assuming UK law approximates US law as it
Sterling> often does (or probably the reverse actually), that muds can
Sterling> be classified as computer games, but creative lawyers could
Sterling> also classify them as literature, i.e., an electronic book,
Sterling> as well as other things (never underestimate a creative
Sterling> lawyer, OJ got off).
I am not familiar with UK law at all. In the US, all computer
software source and object code (including games) is classified as
"literature"; however, a game designer can elect to register the work
as an "audiovisual" work either alternatively or supplementally,
thereby gaining protection for the appearance of the game when
running. The advantage of doing the latter is that it provides for
suit if someone creates a derivative game which is completely original
in the source code but _looks_ exactly (or almost exactly) like the
original. Most video games are copyrighted as audiovisual works to
gain this extra protection against "knockoffs".
Since the user interface for most MUDs is relatively boring, there's
probably little value in an AV copyright, and in fact an AV copyright
might even be barred by the doctrine of merger.
Sterling> Anything you personally write is copyrightable (this
Sterling> sentence copyright 1999, myself).
Not exactly. Everything you write on your own which constitutes a
"creative work" is copyrighted (not merely copyrightable). However,
there are a lot of things one can write which are not creative works.
Sterling> Areas on a mud would definitely be copyrightable, even as
Sterling> part of a larger copyrighted work.
With this I tend to concur, although there may be difficulties if an
"area" is particularly cookie-cutterish, or if it particularly hard to
discern where the "area" starts and ends. Another factor that helps
independent copyright is whether the area is "portable", or if it is
specifically crafted to fit into the larger work, and does so in a
complex way; in the latter case is it possible that the author of the
area instead acquires an interest in the copyright of the larger work
as a joint author. The issues that arise when one has a work
collaboratively authored by a large and inchoate group of authors are
currently very poorly answered by existing copyright law, simply
because nobody's ever sued anyone over such a work.
Most multiple-author cases in copyright law involve jointly authored
books and articles (which usually have two, rarely as many as five or
six, authors working in close collaboration), and anthologies (where
each article is inserted by an editor into a collection with little or
no change). Most situations involving jointly authored software do
not fit either of these models very well. However, the insertion of
areas into MUDs seems to fit the anthology model pretty well.
Sterling> For US copyright laws, refer to
Sterling> http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ It has some very useful
Sterling> information.
I would also suggest Nimmer on Copyright, a leading hornbook on the
topic. Any decent law library will have it.
--
"The dividing line between 'aesthetically unpleasing' and 'ruined' can
probably be found in Gary, Indiana." -- Mark Meiss